5 ms·
The most interesting suggestion, to me: "However, there is something else we can do. It is more radical, but also more useful. Rather than letting people only
by anandkulkarni 13y ago
The most interesting suggestion, to me:
"However, there is something else we can do. It is more radical, but also more useful. Rather than letting people only evaluate papers, why not give them a chance to participate and improve them as well? Put all your papers on github and let others discuss them, open issues, fork them, improve them, and send you corrections. Does it sound crazy? Of course it does, open source also sounded crazy when Richard Stallman announced his manifesto.
Let us be honest, who is going to steal your LaTeX source code? There are much more valuable things to be stolen. If you are tenured professor you can afford to lead the way. Have your grad student teach you git and put your stuff somewhere publicly. Do not be afraid, they tenured you to do such things."
This is a fascinating idea. I'm curious. If we did this (say, with an upcoming technology paper), would anyone want to contribute?
- kleiba 13y agoopen source also sounded crazy when Richard Stallman announced his manifesto. rms: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" (Background: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...)
- derleth 13y agoYou know your philosophy has made it when it's being misunderstood on the Internet.
- AlexanderDhoore 13y agoRichard Stallman still sounds crazy. But open source software has gotten credibility because it's very good. Linus Torvalds had more to do with the acceptance of open source than Richard Stallman. PS: I hate the stupid fights over words: "Gnu/Linux", "Free software"... It's called "Linux" and it's called "open source software". Now get off my lawn.
- easytiger 13y ago> Richard Stallman still sounds crazy. He doesn't sound crazy he is just very eccentric as a individual. And he has an "extremist" position, some would say. IMHO we need someone like that to keep us honest. Remember all the years people like Microsoft put actually money into discrediting FOSS? Would a wishy washy attitude have done much good then? Diplomacy doesn't work worth a damn when your enemy wants to destroy you by any means possible, be it by embracing you or extinguishing you
- slacka 13y agoHis extreme positions sure sounded crazy to me. Like "I refuse to have a cell phone because they are tracking and surveillance devices... many can be remotely converted into listening devices." After this NSA scandal broke, I feel I was a little quick to judge him. I'm not going to give up my cellphone, but I've already quit using FB and have started using more digital privacy tools like OTR in pidgin.
- siddboots 13y agoIt's not just a fight over words. "GNU/Linux" means something more than just "Linux". "Free software" means something more than just "open source"
- rictic 13y agoI get that "Free software" means more than "open source" and I appreciate that the difference is meaningful and significant. I haven't heard an argument for "GNU/Linux" that's any more than "hey a bunch of GNU code is part of linux so GNU should be in the name." which seems a much less principled objection. If I'm wrong though, I'd love to be corrected.
- siddboots 13y agoWell, I suppose that I still cling to a mentality from a decade or so ago, when it seemed worthwhile using "GNU/Linux" to refer to the user-space system (e.g. "Debian is a GNU/Linux"), as opposed to just the kernel. But these days "Linux" is almost universally used to mean the former, and "the kernel" is used to refer to the latter. So I suppose you are right, it is a much less principled objection :)