“If you meet Linus Torvalds, he comes off as a mild-mannered, down-to-earth Finnish-American. He lives with his wife Tove, three kids, a cat, a dog, a snake, a goldfish, a bunny and a pet rat in a comfortable 6000 square foot home just north of Portland’s tony Lake Oswego neighborhood. The house is yellow – his favorite color – and so’s the Mercedes. But he’s not really like any of his neighbors. He drives his Mercedes fast, slamming the car into gear and flooring it. There’s no coaxing, no hesitation. Either the hammer is down, or the car is at rest. And he has an abnormal number of stuffed penguins on his mantle.” Yup, sounds like the to-the-point Fin we all know and love.
I like Linus. He seems much more pragmatic about things than Stallman. In other words, I get the impression that he sees computers and software more as tools, rather than a religion.
Everyone says Stallman is religious, but I don’t think everyone has thought it through at all.
The GPL, for example, acknowledges the fact that people would like to be rewarded for their work, so it requires people give source code back. If people don’t like it, then they don’t use GPL code in their own code.
BSD apologists, on the other hand, are willing to sacrifice actual freedoms in return for an ideological freedom. And if ideological freedom is not religious then I don’t know what is. The pragmatic Linus Torvalds chooses to remain with the GPL for pragmatic reasons.
Who is REALLY religious in the open source world are people like Theo de Raadt. And even then, given the security work that comes out of that, I say that’s not a bad thing. In this case, being religious about standards of work delivers results.
Not to mention that Stallman’s predictions about our rights being taken away are widely acknowledged to be happening. People are being denied to right to read or see videos or listen to music on their own terms.
I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone who says Stallman is “religious” or “ideological” haven’t actually thought things through at all, but rather following popular opinion because it’s fashionable.
Lol Wot?
He is religious because he thinks all software should be free and somehow people rights are being taken away, while using Windows and are “mentally shackled” … Apparently closed source software has got Matrix like powers.
It is absolutely ridiculous
The GPL rewards the user not the developer.
True lock in comes from “Software Design Decisions”.
Did you know that some computers didn’t have a notion of a file at all (the original mac or lisa before Jobs took over the project, didn’t have the very notion of “files”).
MIDI has locked music notes to certain exact frequencies, this didn’t exist before MIDI.
But it is easier I supposed to rant about licenses than actually think on a higher abstract level like the software design itself.
WE are locked into design decisions made 30 years ago.
Edited 2012-03-21 00:11 UTC
The developer can actually ask for money to create new programs and features. The GPL is very clear on that.
Only when the software is distributed to someone else, let’s say the user. should the source be made available to that user.
So the user has the rights to take that work to an other developer and not be stuck with the original developer in cause of a conflict (of interrests or otherwise).
Also maybe it is just me, but AFAIK iOS on iPhone and iPad doesn’t have the notion of a files either (to the user).
This is true.
Closed software is a pain. Do we really need to make money of software tools? Ofcourse money can be made on servicing opensource.
I`ve seen many closed software companies come and go. Each time the same problem. What they spent their time on developing, researching and bugtesting, now has to be repeated by someone else, with more or less success, and maybe with other strenghts. Can be a real PITA if one has gotten used to some piece of software and love it.
If it was opensource, none of these problems would bother us.
Life should be all about the user experience. We are not here to put sadistic restrainments on ourselves. And that is what closed source vs opensource seems to be.
Peace.
Edited 2012-03-21 08:38 UTC
Then create your own firm instead, share your hardware datasheets and open your software to the World. Until that happens, STFU…
Kochise
If you thought that comment somehow enlightehen me, I will try to form a sentence for your small mind, that no, it didn`t. I found it to be severly unintelligent, and you only made me think of you as another ignorant poster on the internet. Please refrain from posting such trash to me in the future. Unless ofcourse you want to be an annoying hellcultivator, and make me enjoy the tought of people like you being killed in Iran. I hope you understand.
I can understand your point that if the source code was open, the consumers could have been able to continue the maintenance of their acquired software, or at least pay someone else to do it. Now I’d like YOU to figure out how the world works, how you can pay your daily meal. You work on linux on your spare time, right ? You get wages for your work, as a coder or else, now you find something that help people. Would you like to give it for free if you were jobless, or get something in return that might sustain your way of life ? Dilemma ! Now you work for your living on YOUR stuff, you have hard time finding consumers, get them you paid for you to pay for your bills, would you still give your secret recipe for free, for the sake of logic ? Sorry to burst your bubble, sure some business do some pretty insane amount of money from nothing, that doesn’t justify them to spread their IP for free as they have to pay their engineers and else for their job that produced these IPs. So the IP have a cost, meanly man-hours based, so you have to cover that cost with incomes, and whenever it’s covered, you still have employee you should pay, so you continue to exploit those IPs to continue to cover the wages.
When I told you to create your firm, I mean, you FOSS fanboys you are like unions. Not that I dislike unions, they are a necessary itch since thos counter balance firm abuses against employee. Sometimes. After it’s all a matter of lobbying, but that’s not the subject. I mean, since RMS’ rise, where are the free CPU with open-sourced VHDL, where are the free video cards with open drivers ? Where are the fucking free open source kernel that works ? Linux doesn’t comply with GPLv3 and you moan ? Work on Hurd ! But for all of this you need incomes to sustain your daily living, and since your dogma impose you do not get paid for free software, at least how would you, since it’s free and “anybody” can make changes to the software, you parasite closed hardware/software firms to get your wages. Of course you or your fellows tries to impose open source software in these companies, so that you can contribute to the “community” while being paid on the company’s income. How smart !
Really, if ever free software should ever control the world, first make bugless softwares, create good specifications (where is ogg ?) and good hardware and stop spitting on the hands that feed you.
Kochise
BSD apologists? Really? I don’t even know what to say, other than perhaps OSS would make some more inroads into consumer computing if the different factions would just realize that the goal is the same, even if the license is not.
You sounds pretty religious yourself.
Reading this thread, I’ve come to the conclusions that people don’t even have a good idea of what being “religious” means.
It’s just become a name to call someone when you have no logical reasons to back up your point of view.
Go on, tell me what exactly I’ve said makes me sound “pretty religious”.
Hints:
“Religious” does not mean “having beliefs” and certainly not “having strong opinions”.
“Religious” is probably being used where “fundamentalist” may be a better term. A part of being “religious” and “fundamentalist” involves strict ideology and some literalism.
“Religious” is not “fanatical” although it commonly does include fanatical elements. Having many different lines of argument is not fanatical. Fanatical often implies the brushing aside of logical arguments. Defense of a belief is not fanatical.
————————
I have no problem with people choosing either BSD or GPL licences. It’s a matter of choice. The FSF lists the BSD as GPL compatible, but I have only ever come across attacks on the GPL from people who like BSD style licences. They say unbelievable things, like “GPL steals your code”. GPL can’t steal your code if you don’t use GPL code. You are not obligated to choose GPL projects. And yet you get this line of argument from BSD apologists all the time.
Well, lets see:
1. Judge other people for their choices, check.
2. Call people names for said choices (BSD apologists), check
3. tell people what the proper choice is, check.
4. See insignificant or semantic differences , as major rifts between factions, check.
Sounds like religious persecution to me. Why not let people who like BSD style licenses use them, and use what you like, without judging? OSS is about freedom, but your post is not.
Read my previous reply. I clearly stated I have no problem with people choosing either GPL or BSD. I did not make any statement that preferred BSD over GPL.
Calling someone an apologist is not “name calling”.
Why hide the fact that BSD freedom IS ideological freedom while GPL freedom IS pragmatic freedom? People want to be paid for their work, so if it’s in the form of giving back code, it’s a pretty fair deal.
So:
1) No check.
2) No check.
3) No check.
4) No check.
What you have done is you’ve formed an opinion about me and then, without bother to have read anything, just assumed I’ve made points that matched all for points.
An apologist is a derogatory term, at least in common usage. It is generally taken to mean somebody who makes excuses for something beyond rational or logical limits.
It’s almost as bad as fanboy
No on both counts.
I think someone’s a bit too sensitive. Why do you not go after that poster who used “Freetard”? That’s more derogatory than “apologist”.
Your understanding of what an apologist is is wrong, plain and simple. An apologist is someone who merely apologizes for a certain point of view. They may make excuses, or they may use rational and logical arguments.
Someone who apologizes for BSD style licences is thus a BSD apologist. It does not put down anyone for choosing the BSD licence – it merely describes those who take the step of apologizing for BSD, mainly by attacking people who choose the GPL.
The same description would apply for someone who apologizes for the GPL. In my time of following this back and forth discussion, it’s mainly been BSD apologists attacking GPL users for “stealing code”, forgetting the fact that they don’t have to use GPL code in the first place if they don’t want to pay it back.
How is that argument not an apologetic for BSD and how is that rational or logical in any way?
This is why I continue to say you lot just haven’t thought things though at all. Thinking things through is not “religious”.
Uh, no, Perhaps your understanding of what an apologist is wrong? I said in common usage, and in common usage, it is a derogatory term. You might be technically correct that it is not defined as a derogatory term, but it is used in a derogatory fashion all the time. Google the term, you’ll see.
You mean to tell me that statement is attacking in itself? I don’t think you can be reasoned with in this case, as you are the one doing the attacking. You brought up the differences in the licensing, and you continue to attack BSD supporters.
You seem like the perfect analog to a religious fanatic to me. Oh, and stop telling me that I haven’t thought things through, or that I don’t understand the terms. It’s just another way to dismiss arguments you don’t agree with.
Once again, stop putting people down for their choices. The GPL is just a license, different in some ways from the BSD license, but both are Free, and both have the same goal.
Well I wasn’t using it in a derogatory sense. Maybe you shouldn’t be such a sissy over a harmless description? I gave you my reasons for using the word. How can I be wrong if I’m using the word “apologist” in its intended definition? I don’t care what you think it is in common usage.
I gave you my reasons and you still use it as evidence of me being derogatory – that’s no longer my problem. That is a problem of you having a prejudiced opinion of me that no amount of reasoning will convince you out of.
How have I attacked BSD supporters? I only explained the logical inconsistency with the argument that GPL “steals code” that comes from people who take the extra step of decrying the GPL after preferring the BSD licence. I also explained the difference in freedoms between BSD and GPL. The FACT of the matter is that BSD-style freedom is ideological, while GPL-style freedom is pragmatic. NEITHER freedoms are better than the other. Do I have to make myself clear or will you actually read this time?
Or is trying explaining why people are mistaken for calling the FSF “religious” an “attack”?
I can be reasoned with in this case. So far, I’m the only one trying to reason. You are taking the shortcut of calling me a religious fanatic and have not addressed any of my reasons for my opinion. The only argument coming out of you is “You’re a fanatic! You’re a fanatic! You sound like a fanatic! I don’t know what apologisty means, so you must be a fanatic.”
Except I don’t dismiss arguments – I explain quite in depth why they’re wrong. Apparently, according to your twisted logic, that is “religious fanatic” is it?
Stop lying. I have never said anything that put down people for their choices. I have never said BSD users were evil. I have never said GPL users were good.
All I have said is that the argument that FSF related people/licences are somehow religious are mistaken in terminology, reason, logic, and evidence. That is NOT putting people down.
If you think explaining why certain arguments about a particular topic is “putting people down for their choices”, then YOU are the religious fanatic. Religious fanatics are the only ones who argue that people aren’t allowed to point out THEIR mistakes in reasoning because it makes them feel bad, which makes them feel sad.
Stallman strong believes have done a lot of the world.
Without it, Linux wouldn’t exist in it’s current form.
Just as an example gcc. It might not produce the best performing code. But it does produce code for a lot of architectures.
Do you think NetBSD would be available on that many platforms without gcc ?
I doubt Creative Commons would have even existed without his ideas.
Just see how many Creative Commons works there are just on Flickr alone: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/
Without Creative Commons Wikipedia might not exist either.
Those are some of the things that popped into my head, I’m sure there are better examples.
It seems to me even Thom had to change his mind:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25469/Richard_Stallman_Was_Right_All_Al…
People complain about articles about patents on OSNews, maybe without Stallman it would have been even worse.
Stallman’s strong beliefs haven’t done shit for the world. Stallman (and his followers) wrote a lot of code and then gave it away, and THAT did a lot for the world. Linus did the same thing as Stallman, but doesn’t have the same religious beliefs. In other words, if we’d have had more CODE from the FSF and less religion over the years from them, they’d probably have gotten a lot further than they are now.
Even some of the most religious fanatics have done good works, but that doesn’t say anything about the validity of their religion. If a bunch of Christians (or Muslims) set up and run a homeless shelter, does that mean their god is real?
What does patents have to do with software licenses? Especially since even open source projects like Android are getting sued for patent violations. That is a COMPLETELY separate issue. Just because somebody patents ‘slide to unlock’ and sues over it doesn’t mean the world needs to stop using non-free software.
Edited 2012-03-21 00:59 UTC
Without his beliefs, Stallman wouldn’t have created that code.
This is ridiculous. Linus T has attitude problems and very big ego. How can someone say the likes Linus? That is over most peoples head.
Why would someone call OpenBSD developers “masturbating monkeys” for focusing on security? There are many other quotes from Linus, showing his attitude problems.
Those Linus’ quotes make Linux users masturbate I guess.
Just because somebody patents ‘slide to unlock’ and sues over it doesn’t mean the world needs to stop using non-free software.
Need is a strong word. But if every end user rejected proprietary software, there wouldn’t be proprietary outfits left who think patenting ‘slide to unlock’ is a good thing.
There is no particular incentive to patent stuff if your own licensing stipulates that patent grants are perpetual, sub-licensable, worldwide and royalty free.
Firstly, I say Stallman and the FSF has done more than most religions in terms of contributing positively to humanity.
Secondly, you keep using religion to describe the activities of the FSF, but an actual explanation of why it’s an accurate description is conspicuously absent. Just because everyone says it is doesn’t make it so.
Thirdly, the FSF does more than code. Raising awareness is very important. In case you haven’t noticed in the past 20 years, lobbyists have forcibly injected politics into technological issues and you’d be fool to focus on the code while your freedom to move is being taken from you.
Fourthly, your last argument is just pathetic and irrelevant. The FSF and Stallman’s activities have measurable impact as a direct result of their stated goals. Your last argument is irrelevant and is no more than an excuse to restate that you think they’re religions without having to back up that argument.
Patents have everything to do with copyright because they are forced into the Intellectual Property umbrella which is a debatable concept, but nonetheless exists due to lobbying.
Technically, you are right, but the people seeking to take away basic freedoms aren’t playing a technical game. They are playing a political game.
This is very easy to explain. Folks like Linus use the GPL for practical reasons, because he believes that is the best license for what he is doing. Stallman and his followers use the GPL for moral reasons, regardless of whether it is practical or not, because to use a non-FSF approved license would be akin to commiting sin. He’s already said everyone should use free software, regardless of whether or not is is technically superior to the non-free alternatives. If that isn’t religion, I don’t know what is.
Again, you can give out the source code to something like a codec and still demand royalties for their use, so I’m not seeing how the discussion of patents is relevant to this topic. Even DRM has been used in open source software, hence the creation of the GPL v3. Every time the discussion of non-free software comes up, Freetards feel the need to bring up patents and DRM as the main reason not to use said software, even though most non-free software devs are not patent holders, and most non-free apps have no DRM at all. These things are NOT mutually exclusive. It would be like saying that since a lot of shitty, ‘v0.1’ alpha/beta software happens to be open source, then we should just quit using FOSS altogether to avoid these kinds of apps.
Even if you believe strongly that DRM and patents are evil and should be done away with, it doesn’t help your cause to paint all non-free software devs as seal-clubbing bastards who are out to take away your freedoms, just because a select few happen to fall under this category. Most of them just want to get paid for their work, and they aren’t going to make a lot of money selling support or custom versions of a $2 phone app.
Except there are NO Stallman followers. People are allowed to agree with Stallman’s principles, even in part, without being a follower.
So what if he said everyone should use free software? Are people not allowed to have opinions? Having a strong opinion or belief is NOT “religion”. And how has he acted on those beliefs? He used COPYRIGHT LAW and subverted it with the GPL. That’s pretty pragmatic to me.
Did you know back in Darwin’s day, to combat slavery, Darwin’s family and associates campaigned to stop everyone buying slave sugar, even if it was too expensive at the moment. Does that make anti-slavery a religion?
You continue to prove my point that people have not thought this through. You have a really poor definition of “religion”. You really don’t know what is religion. By your flaky definition, anyone or anything’s who is not inhumanly neutral on every subject. Hell, by your definition, the anti-software-patent movement is a religion.
You continue to miss the point that this is not a technical issue. We have to treat these in one package because the opposition, with their money and political power, are making it one package. Deal with it.
It’s strange that I was called “religious” for using the term “BSD apologist” but others can use terms like “Freetard”.
And who of Stallman’s “followers” have actually demonized people for taking money for software? It’s been said time and time again that the GPL doesn’t preclude monetary payments.
The most that comes from that group is the insistence that free software be preferred over binary blobs. They haven’t tried to ban anything. They may have tried to create their own distros, but that’s a personal choice that they haven’t tried to force down other people’s throats.
You are right, I use the term ‘religion’ to describe the philosophy of people who are more concerned about the moral/ethical aspects of software rather than the practical use of said software. I use that term simply because I don’t know of a better one, and I think it gets the point across. In the end, Stallman cares more about freedom (or at least his warped version of it) rather than silly little things such as productivity and actually getting work done.
Quoting Stallman:
Our goal is to establish freedom for software users, and freedom is
much broader and deeper than “freedom of choice”. Thus, our aim is
not just that people should be able to “make choices about software
freedom”, but rather that they should actually HAVE software freedom.
Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our
goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software. We cannot
eliminate it this year, but what we can and must do now is refuse to
legitimize it.
In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people
the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought
to abolish slavery.
Source:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/accessibility/2010-07/msg00055.ht…
No question about it… this guy is a fanatic. And yes, I would consider anybody who wishes to abolish FOSS to be just the same.
Edited 2012-03-22 02:07 UTC
Another fine example of not having thought things through.
You think that worrying about the ethical aspects of software is opposed to productivity and actually getting work done? Have you or have you not seen the progress made because of certain projects adoption of open source licences?
Linux uses GPLv2. It is very successful and very active. Both corporations and hobbyists contribute to it. Highly productive. End of story.
Stallman is right to care about freedom because productivity and getting work done REQUIRES freedom. For you to make them out as opposite ideals is idiotic at best.
And what ACTIONS have they taken to achieve that goal?
Basically, what we have here is people arguing “fanaticism” and “religion” based on a person having strong opinions or beliefs. What kind of philosophy course taught you this nonsense?
Depending on the situation, yes. Stallman said it himself in an article right here on this site:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25724/Interview_Richard_Stallman
If you convince people that some free software is technically superior, they might run some free software, but they will remain ready to use nonfree software in the areas where that is technically superior. They will continue to judge an important question based on superficial issues. This is just a partial success.
However, if you convince people that they deserve freedom, they will start rejecting nonfree software whether it is technically inferior or technically superior, because they will see that free software is ethically superior. They will understand the important question and judge it right. This is a full, deep success.
So basically, he says that you should use FOSS instead of proprietary software, even if you’d be more efficient and productive with the proprietary solution. You know, because things like productivity and efficiency are ‘superficial issues’ as far as he’s concerned.
I didn’t say you couldn’t be as productive using FOSS; sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the app and the situation.
I don’t know; I am not Stallman’s keeper. Look, if you want to evangelize one type of software over another and preach to people why you think it is superior, great. But when you start talking about one or the other being evil and wanting to do away with it… well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m going to label you a fanatic.
I don’t even know what that means. As I said before, Stallman doesn’t care about freedom. Actually, let me rephrase that – Stallman cares about freedom so long as it aligns with his FOSS agenda. But if you would like the freedom to either develop or use proprietary software, well…. as he said, proprietary software is evil and should be done away with.
This is a clear cut case of you taking his words out of context. The question he was asked was:
He was asked what’s the best way to ADVOCATE Free Software. He outlined how to ADVOCATE Free Software.
This is what he says at the end of that question:
He’s not saying people should prefer Free Software over a more convenient closed software because, as he clearly states, people can judge for themselves. So in the context of ADVOCACY, he is right there is more than just technical issues. He clearly still believes that ultimately the user will choose what’s best for them, technically.
In fact, he just gave a really good reason for his advocacy style – for the cases where people don’t want to use Free Software before trying it out. Sounds pretty pragmatic to me…
No, what you said was that the FSF’s evangelism was opposed to being productive and generating code. You and others cite the fact that nothing of note in terms of software has come from the FSF in recent years.
I said that’s missing the point. The actions of the FSF (and I don’t say ONLY the FSF) ENABLES productivity everywhere copyright law allows the GPL. I say that people are shortsighted in their criticism against the FSF that they haven’t produced useful code. Their stated goals are beyond code. Freedom is required for productivity and organizations like the FSF are needed. So are the open source lawyers. They don’t produce code either, but I dare you to say they aren’t enabling people to be productive.
When someone like Stallman uses words like evil, I see it as “fantasy nerd humour”. And we all know what Stallman’s sense of humour is like – flat and slightly sexist. I think it’s obvious that his strong language is hyperbolic on purpose and for people take him as being entirely serious about that word is paradoxically religious.
Remember, it is the religious fanatics who, for example, causes books to be banned because they contain words or concepts foreign to their beliefs whether or not the words are meant in an ironic, parodic or flippant sense.
[/q]
You don’t know why productivity and “getting work done” REQUIRES freedom? Are you serious?
In short, yes.
BSD already existed before GNU, the only difference would be the compiler chain, really.
One of the things I’d like to see is Linus making an “official” support to projects like Cinnamon and MATE. It’s been a while since he called GNOME Shell an “unholy mess”, and he’s quite funny because he comes with these down to earth expressions. Sometimes you figure things out about something and there’s him already with a totally down to earth opinion on that subject. I quite like his sense of humour and way of handling some of the issues in software and computing.
I had read it before, but I now have some dates to go with it:
‘…around 2000, when he was still working at Transmeta, he met Steve Jobs. Jobs invited him to Apple’s Cupertino campus and tried to hire him. “Unix for the biggest user base: that was the pitch,†says Torvalds. The condition: He’d have to drop Linux development. “He wanted me to work at Apple doing non-Linux things,†he said. That was a non-starter for Torvalds. Besides, he hated Mac OS’s Mach kernel.’
What if Jobs had asked Torvalds before Apple had started on the Darwin part of the Mac OS X project ? 2000 is even before the first release of Mac OS X. The world would have been a different place.
As mentioned in the article. Jobs has design taste and Linus has engineering taste.
Not sure if they would get along in the long run though 😉
But still interresting to think about.
Um… no. Darwin is based on the Mac OS X base OS. Mac OS X is based (when you rewind back throught he version to the Developer Releases) on Mac OS X Server, which in turn is based on Rhapsody, which in turn is based on OpenStep, which in turn is based on NextStep. You must then factor in that NextStep was Jobs baby back in the late 1980’s. Indeed, when Next demonstrated their hardware in 1988, the OS that Mac OS X is based on existed.
Linux was first released in the Winter of 1991.
Do you see the problem with your logic? Jobs was never going to go anywhere near Linux. Even the mkLinix that Apple Sponsored used the Mach kernel.
I’ve never really looked into the history of it.
I thought the Mac OS X UI and application framework was based on NextStep and so on.
I also thought the Darwin part, thus the base OS, did not exists before the Mac OS X project and was based on parts of FreeBSD and an existing micro kernel project.
My thought was, what if the base OS was Linux.
As I’ve not looked into it. It might not have been able to make it work. Maybe the other parts of Mac OS X just can’t function without the micro kernel.
No. Mac OS X, as it is now, is the evolution of what Next had in 1988 (and, likely, earlier.) the same lead engineer was working on Mac OS X from the genesis of the Mach kernel at Carnigie Melon, right up till 10.5. His name is Avie Tevanian – google him.
What Apple did was slowly replace the ageing subsystems with sections of more modern BSD code (usually FreeBSD), but the project was continuous and progressive. If you look at OpenStep and then at Rhapsody, you can see the evolution towards Mac OS. You then look at Mac OS X Server 1.x (which is nothing to do with Mac OS X 10.x Server directly), and you see the basis for the Mac OS X public Betas. It was a continued evolution, not a sudden change. Yes the kernel is now XNU, but it evolved out of the Mach R&D with concepts from BSD bolted on. The driver model is akin to that of OpenStep, and Linux at the time would have been a giant step backwards.
OK thanks for the explanation.
That is why I’m on OSNews sometimes you actually learn something 🙂
I was working on some DSP code. And realized how some audio DSP had been perfected since computers become commonly available.
1970`s analog and softclipping was used.
1980 first digital looahead peak limiters.
1990 more sophisticated
2000 very high level
2010 perfection.
I consider my limiter perfected. (available at https://sourceforge.net/projects/pxu/files/ )
It`s interesting to note that Linux seems to be perfected in the same way. It has reached perfection because it can run so low latency, and that means having a computer experience close to the best of vintage assembly systems.
Does that mean that software perfection is reached within 50 years of common availability of computers?
Peace!
I’ve had plenty of time to think of it while I was waiting for my Ubuntu system to give me back my mouse pointer after opening a few Firefox tabs. I would say there’s still some room for improvement
And Hurd is not yet even functional. Where have you been all that long ?
Kochise