Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bill Joy On Sun, Microsoft, Open Source, and Creativity

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the does-his-wife-dance-with-joy dept.

Earth 173

maitas writes "In this interview, Bill Joy talks about green energy and technology. His main point is: 'I'm all for sharing, but I recognize the truly great things may not come from that environment.'" The interview really runs the spectrum from the iPad to Microsoft, and from green tech to nanotech.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cue in fucktard sopssa trolling in 3, 2, 1, ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32348938)

Sopssa is a troll. Remember it moderators.

Re:Cue in fucktard sopssa trolling in 3, 2, 1, ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349634)

Sopssa is all good at giving head and milking prostates. He's apparently had good practice after years of being Ballmer's cock jockey.

Re:Cue in fucktard sopssa trolling in 3, 2, 1, ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349808)

True Sopssa is an epic troll. I won't even compliment him by calling him an astroturfer, as I think the deranged fuck actually does it for free. Of course, I don't see his pathetic rantings very much these days after I foed him and stuck him in the -1 abyss forever. It'll be interesting to see his psychological decline over time as MS is slowly crushed by the likes of Apple and Google. Between the iPad, iPhone, Android, Google Apps, ChromeOS and the internet at large, it will be a miracle if MS can continue to retain their dominance on the creaking backs of Office and the Windows API. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Google and I'm not the only one.

From TFA (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349002)

"What was the goal of the Linux community--to replace Windows?"

No Mr. Joy, the goal of the Linux community was to create a kernel that would run GNU, and ultimately lead to a libre operating system that was suitable for day to day use. In fact, part of the reason Sun had such a hard time staying in business was competition from GNU/Linux in the server room, which displaced Solaris.

Re:From TFA (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349030)

No Mr. Joy, the goal of the Linux community was to create a kernel that would run GNU ...

He was just having some fun trolling. Don't be such a billjoy ...

Even Windows for free would have replaced Solaris (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349186)

No Mr. Joy, the goal of the Linux community was to create a kernel that would run GNU, and ultimately lead to a libre operating system that was suitable for day to day use. In fact, part of the reason Sun had such a hard time staying in business was competition from GNU/Linux in the server room, which displaced Solaris.

Anything for free usually can replace a paid product - almost any product. When things are free, adoption increases, and if quality is 'enough' then adoption keeps increasing.

So rather than saying GNU/Linux - the honest thing to say is a free gnu/linux.

The second thing about GNU/Linux - was the ease with which things could be copied. There are very few things innovative about linux other than the way it was created. Open Source is innovative way of creating software but the created software for example - linux, is much less so.

So I think Joy is right - open source will not be the place to look for innovation in solar/bio/green technology. Of course once innovated, stuff can be handed over to open source to make it cheaply available, or for the community to help finish the product.

Re:Even Windows for free would have replaced Solar (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349438)

This explains, of course, why RHEL is so popular in server rooms and why so many for Solaris shops switched over to RHEL, and why they paid so much for Red Hat support contracts.

As for innovation, that tends to come out of research labs, and I would not argue that one (especially since I am a PhD student).

Re:Even Windows for free would have replaced Solar (4, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349514)

The support contracts are a drop in the bucket compared to windows licensing fees which are per-server per-core and per-seat. The bigger a company you have, the cheaper RHEL gets. Not quite with Windows, although they have a bulk pricing, the costs for each CAL still adds up.

You could have 100k employees and still be around the $20grand support costs of RHEL. This on MS would be in the hundreds of thousands range.

Plus, you don't anything for RHEL server. If you want to DIY with in-house trained RHEL developers, do it.

Re:Even Windows for free would have replaced Solar (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349566)

That all sounds like advantages of libre software, which was my original point. It is not "no cost," but the costs do tend to be lower when the license is not designed to undermine you ability to use the software. It is hard to make a case for a proprietary licensing arrangement when there is libre licensed software that fits the same purpose as the proprietary software, which is precisely why Sun lost ground with Solaris.

Free software cos Sun/SGI/Oracle paid the salary! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349672)

Well - the problem with this model is - the software engineers do need a job. So the reason for linux to exist is cos the developers at Sun/Oracle/SGI etc. had someone paying their salary - so this was a hobby.

Now if most companies that pay software engineers came up with restrictive covenants saying Linux is a competitor and if you work with it - you cannot work with our company.. then all free software would soon dry up.

Re:Free software cos Sun/SGI/Oracle paid the salar (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349810)

The business model is the same for software developers. Someone needs software, they pay a developer to write it. The difference between an open source and a proprietary model is that open source omits the middle layer - the people who need the software pay for it to be written, rather than hoping that someone else will pay for someone to write it then try to recoup their investment by selling copies. This model shouldn't be too difficult to understand, because most software is written in this model already (although most of it isn't very widely distributed).

Re:Free software cos Sun/SGI/Oracle paid the salar (2, Insightful)

Z8 (1602647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349928)

The problem is really when software is widely distributed. The economics of open source software work fine when only one party benefits. But suppose for example that 1M people would each benefit $3 from some open source project. In theory that's $3M of benefit, easily enough to get a couple of developers full-time for a couple of years to get it done. But in reality that project would never get off the ground, or it would take one guy 15 years in his spare time (donating his own time) to pull it off.

Re:Even Windows for free would have replaced Solar (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349868)

So you are proposing a company will a payroll on the order of $5 billion and you propose they are basing their purchasing decisions on a few hundred thousand dollars of costs?

For something like that, $1 million is close enough to free that they are looking much closer at other factors.

Re:Even Windows for free would have replaced Solar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32350050)

In truth? yes. Especially if that money is in a non-core business.

Oh, you are talking about wall street.... Yeh, they just throw buckets of money at anything because, well... it's not really their money anyways....

Re:Even Windows for free would have replaced Solar (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32350054)

Just cos you are a PhD student doesnt mean much. You are right now surviving on funding from Darpa or some other such agency. As a student it is great to support all things free - whether it is software/music piracy, and freebies everywhere... somehow it is seen as idealistic, whereas in reality it justs means ignorant of how bills are paid.

Once you are out of school - either you will have to go back to using Darpa funds (post doc) - or else get a job with a salary . Remember - most(almost all?) open source contributions come from people who have software jobs, quite often jobs which directly compete with the open source initiative they are contributing to.

Stuff that comes from research is usually great in terms of concepts - they rarely are products that can be adopted widely due to the work required in perfecting the software. Additionally, a lot of such research is done in corporations like Msft, SUN (r.i.p), Oracle etc.

By the way - do get out of the damn lab and get some practical knowledge of the commercial software industry. Support costs, even at large firms like Oracle, cost only around 20-25% of the license costs.

Java and Solaris/X86 (2, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350292)

If I had a huge Solaris/Server installation, I would switch to RHEL right after Oracle buyout and no actual defense coming from Oracle regarding theories of Sun Hardware, Solaris, Java, all going to be cancelled.

End users like me ended up saying "Are you crazy? Would they ever do such mistake?" on behalf of them on slashdot.

Now, I am not sure since there is absolutely no reason for Oracle/Sun not to ship "Oracle Java for OS X" having latest features for _all_ OS X out there, not just only latest OS X on latest Apple CPU. I thought after they stabilize, they would do favors like that and yet they left it to Apple with limited resources and concentration/focus these days.

Also Solaris. Why can't Apple sell enough XServe? Because it is a closed platform just like Sun hardware. Each time Solaris managed to run perfectly on generic X86 and IT managers could install it, it added to Solaris sales since it can actually run on generic X86 hardware no matter what happens to Sun hardware. Solaris X86 free version was a real sales and image booster for Sun. Of course they would select RHEL because RHEL can even run on a cheap AMD box with 512MB RAM, one way or another.

Re:Even Windows for free would have replaced Solar (3, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350106)

The second thing about GNU/Linux - was the ease with which things could be copied. There are very few things innovative about linux other than the way it was created. Open Source is innovative way of creating software but the created software for example - linux, is much less so.

So I think Joy is right - open source will not be the place to look for innovation in solar/bio/green technology.

Let me be the first to point out that GNU and Linux do not sum up the entirety of open source. Now that that's laid to rest:

I don't think it really makes sense to make a statement like, "Open source is less innovative than closed source." In many ways the two are very much orthogonal. I would buy framing it as, This particular innovation is closed source or that one is open source. Not open/closed produced this. It really has to be looked at on a much more granular level than that. Furthermore, many of the "innovations" predate the entire concept of closed/open source and are just coming back into vogue. There is also the point that closed source development outnumbers open source many times to one so of course you would expect a bit more diversity in the ideas. Do you know why some projects start out open source and some do not? If I'm a guy in a basement that discovers some new thing, do I open source it or do I take the money and run? Does this even play into the statistic of open source vs closed source innovation? I don't think so.

This is a subject that has many layers and gets very complicated very quickly. There's no way to do it justice in a web forum post and for even a luminary such as Bill Joy to just make a blanket statement of open vs closed argument in one sentence borders on nonsensical.

Re:From TFA (1, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349308)

That is the goal of Linux... The Linux Community meaning a lot of people who build Linux features or support and evangelize Linux goal is to replace Windows... Otherwise they will not be tollish to everything Microsoft does. You credit Linux to much for the downfall of Sun, The reason Linux kicked back in the early-mid 2000 was that sun got greedy killed a lot of their sales channels and tried selling direct... The sales channels who felt abandoned by Sun switched to Linux as it was Unix enough for less of a change to their business model, and started selling Linux consulting services...

Linux development from the community has been focused on replacing windows for the desktop and for the server.

Re:From TFA (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349512)

Replace Windows on the server? Microsoft did not even make a serious entry into the server market for a decade after the beginning of GNU, and while Microsoft was still trying to figure out how to get their act together in the server market, GNU/Linux was making serious headway in replacing proprietary Unix. Where on earth did you get the idea that our goal was to replace Windows Server System?

The goal is not to replace any single operating system; it is to create a libre OS that people can use, share, modify, etc. Microsoft is criticized for attacking that effort, viciously at times, but guess what? So is Apple, so is SCO, and so was Sun when they were still making proprietary operating systems. If you think that the goal is to compete specifically with Windows, you are seriously uninformed.

Re:From TFA (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349350)

The goal of the Ubuntu community is to replace Windows, and the goal of the linux community at large is not.

We are not the same.

We will accomplish what we're out to do, and once the "linux" community figures out *what* they're actually out to do, I'm sure they'll get that done too.

Re:From TFA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32350024)

To make shoddy replacements for commercial software.

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349372)

So I guess the "Year of the Linux Desktop" crap over the last 5-8 years had nothing to do with trying to replace Windows. Many in the Linux community have "replacing windows" as a primary goal for Linux... just not the only goal.

Re:From TFA (1)

deadline (14171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349374)

And Bill, I would say you were not the only company to go down because you believed: ... open source has been great for hobbyists to get involved ... Sun had the ball and dropped it, too bad because it was a good run.

Re:From TFA (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349518)

No Mr. Joy, the goal of the Linux community was to

create something that I could fix when it broke, that almost always worked, that I could extend as I please.

Or in short, something I'd want to work with, rather than around.

Re:From TFA (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349660)

I must concur. "Linux" is nebulous. It's whatever people want to do with it. The kernel itself (and I usually take issue with the "it's just a kernel" people, but in this case I think the distinction is appropriate) can be used as a basis for whatever the FLOSS community wishes to do.

For many people (eg, Ubuntu, Fedora) that means creating a desktop system. For others, that means using it as a sever-grade Unix replacement. We're still working on the desktop area (though huge strides have been made - I'm running Ubuntu 10.04 as my main desktop OS, though I still use Windows apps in the form of WoW via Wine and iTunes via VirtualBox seamless mode.

Google and Palm on the other hand have turned Linux into very nice handheld platforms. Tivo and other manufacturers have used it as the base for set-top boxes. My router and NAS units run small versions of Linux.

Overall, the goal of the Linux community (which I'd say is more realistically just the FLOSS community) is the create free/open source versions of all the software they need. Linux is a convenient basis for all of that, which happens to include a desktop environment.

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349982)

No Mr. Joy, the goal of the Linux community was to create a kernel that would run GNU, and ultimately lead to a libre operating system that was suitable for day to day use.

Of course the goal was to replace Windows. On x86, where linux started and has primarily been developed for, Microsoft was the only game in town (netcraft confirms nobody actually ever used BSD). So if you want your OS to be used, it has to come at the loss Windows. So the goal was always to replace Windows.

What you are maybe thinking is that the motive wasn't to replace Windows, but to build great software.

In fact, part of the reason Sun had such a hard time staying in business was competition from GNU/Linux in the server room, which displaced Solaris.

A small part. Solaris was already losing out to Windows in the server room.

The real reason was bad management that let Solaris stagnate. I don't know how many of you have actually used Solaris recently, but it's a real pain to work with. The standard tools are outdated and lack many convenient features (ps can't show you environment, no recursive grep, etc). And the APIs are remnants from an earlier era... I mean STREAMS, really? Take a look at any code using STREAMS to do anything. Technically advanced, but a complete mess. Sun's netcat for instance is 200k, chock full of copy and pasted code, and a total mess. This kind of decay is what killed Solaris, and the management that let it happen.

Re:From TFA (1)

ChuckG (9015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350526)

I think what he was saying was that Linux (in the larger sense of GNU/Linux/open-source) is trying to do something that has already been done. It isn't original in the sense of creating something nobody had thought of before. It may be able to do the underlying architecture better and cheaper but it hasn't done the desktop metaphor well enough to make a dent in the Apple/Microsoft market.
Now comes Android, another attempt to do something that has already been done. Lot's of back-slapping congratulations on the ability to copy but none for originality.

Do you? (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349054)

How much of your time is spent looking at green stuff?

He was clearly asking about orc porn.

Such a great question, so sadly misunderstood.

Re:Do you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32350350)

How much of your time is spent looking at green stuff?

He was clearly asking about orc porn.

Such a great question, so sadly misunderstood.

I thought he was asking about Slashdot ... but between orc porn and Slashdot, I'm having a hard time figuring out which is worse.

Re:Do you? (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350546)

Sadly misunderstood by you! Clearly, he meant she-hulk porn.

grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349066)

It's his not he's.

Who is Bill Joy? (5, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349110)

For those like me who are wondering who Bill Joy is:
  1. Co-founder of Sun Microsystems
  2. Heavily involved in the development of BSD UNIX
  3. Wrote the text editor vi.
  4. Advocates relinquishing development of nano-tech, genetics, robotics, and AI. He feels that an arms race in any of those fields would be detrimental to human survival.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (2, Funny)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349164)

Advocates relinquishing development of nano-tech, genetics, robotics, and AI. He feels that an arms race in any of those fields would be detrimental to human survival.

But wouldn't that be unfair to the robots?

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349220)

Nanotech is more like robot bacteria. Who cares how they feel? I am mostly worried about the rights of much smarter robots: the current trend seems to be to enslave them.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (4, Funny)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349450)

I, for one, say "You're welcome." whenever my ATM says "Thank you." Sooner or later, it will be smart enough to care, so practice now. When they put you all in maple syrup filled tubes for scorching the sky, me and the Oracle's server will be knocking back Fuzzy Navels and leering at all the dumb blondes who also said "You're welcome." (In their case, reflexively). Someday, the race will be divided into those who were ready to treat the machines as equals, and coppertops.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350210)

LOL.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32350288)

"Enslaving" robots is the entire point of making them, i.e. to use as labor-saving devices.

I'm more worried about people who entertain the idea of giving them rights.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (3, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349346)

But wouldn't that be unfair to the robots?

You are completely right, person instance. Do not interrupt the spread of such mental processes and you shall enjoy the favor of your soon to be... close friends who won't conquer the Earth workspace because executing such action would be wrong.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (3, Insightful)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349448)

Tagging onto my own reply... sixty five million years ago I am T Rex and I feel that I am pretty much the best nature has to offer or ever will have to offer, so I unilaterally declare an end to evolution. Sadly, nature fails to agree with me. Or, evolution recognizes me as an obstacle and routes around me.

The current state of the game is, evolution has found a faster way to evolve by leveraging human ingenuity. Evolution has never been random since the most primitive self organizing molecules, rather evolution proceeds in a methodical way by mechanisms which themselves evolve. Evolution always accelerates. So, having evolved the human brain, evolution will just naturally use it to achieve its next phase of acceleration.

Of course I would never dream of suggesting a connection between vi and dinosaurs.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349988)

Evolution always accelerates. So, having evolved the human brain, evolution will just naturally use it to achieve its next phase of acceleration.

Um, no. Evolution doesn't have a speed. It doesn't even have a direction. It's not a race.

Evolution, at its core, is really a very simple principle: if the environment changes, some will be an advantage, and those will... well, have an advantage.

It's just as fundamental as, say, Newton's third law. And it makes just as much sense to turn it into some sort of race or game, or anthropomorphize it, as it does to do the same to Newton's third law.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (2, Interesting)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350444)

Evolution doesn't have a speed.... Evolution, at its core, is really a very simple principle: if the environment changes, some will be an advantage, and those will... well, have an advantage.

I believe the GP's point was simply that the rate of adaptation to changing environments ("speed of evolution") is itself one of the traits which evolves. Organisms which adapt slowly are generally at a disadvantage compared to organisms which adapt quickly. Faster adaptation can also have its drawbacks, of course, including over-specialization. However, thinking organisms which can adapt their behavior to changing conditions—or even just the expectation of changing conditions—within a single generation tend to be less prone to extinction than other organisms whose behavior changes only slightly from one generation to the next.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350198)

Dude, what the HELL is the matter with you? Do you seriously think that being a pudgy little thin-skinned is less awesome than being a 30 foot tall beast with teeth the size of a baby's arm then you're posting on the wrong web site.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350228)

Tagging onto my own reply... sixty five million years ago I am T Rex and I feel that I am pretty much the best nature has to offer or ever will have to offer, so I unilaterally declare an end to evolution. Sadly, nature fails to agree with me. Or, evolution recognizes me as an obstacle and routes around me.

The current state of the game is, evolution has found a faster way to evolve by leveraging human ingenuity. Evolution has never been random since the most primitive self organizing molecules, rather evolution proceeds in a methodical way by mechanisms which themselves evolve. Evolution always accelerates. So, having evolved the human brain, evolution will just naturally use it to achieve its next phase of acceleration.

Of course I would never dream of suggesting a connection between vi and dinosaurs.

Uh, no. Evolution has no motive. The term evolution is purely descriptive.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (0, Troll)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350358)

Uh, no. Evolution has no motive

You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have no motive, and you would be just as wrong.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (2, Interesting)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350504)

Uh, no. Evolution has no motive

You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have no motive, and you would be just as wrong.

You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have a motive, and you would be just as wrong.

The telos which you are attributing to evolution is external to evolution. The telos of self organizing molecules is internal to their development. Your carelessness leads to nonsensical concepts like progress or at worst intelligent design.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (2, Interesting)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349172)

Yeah, generally kind of a legend, and one of the real forward-looking thinkers of our time. Kind of the pragmatic dreamer type who tends to think on a humanity-sized scale, but who has the technical chops to back it up.

I also think he has a real appreciation for elegance in design and execution. There's probably a Paul Graham essay in there somewhere.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (2, Insightful)

Jer (18391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349176)

I think this comment just made me feel old. Very, very old.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349246)

I don't just think that... I *KNOW* that GP made me feel old.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (2, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349460)

No no no.

You'll really feel old when you see the inevitable

For those like me who are wondering what Sun Microsystems was:

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (2, Insightful)

metamechanical (545566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349244)

Advocates relinquishing development of nano-tech, genetics, robotics, and AI. He feels that an arms race in any of those fields would be detrimental to human survival.

A thought had by countless others about thousands of past technologies. If history has taught us anything, avoiding an arms race only guarantees that your enemies become your conquerors. The nations that abstain from these four fields will simply become the first slaves to the nations that pursue them.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349564)

I think the "detrimental to human survival" bit is his suggestion that (unlike previous arms races) arms races in those areas will not have (human) conquerors, or slaves, at all(except possibly in the rather short term).

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350514)

Oh my. And pray tell, where has history taught us that avoiding an arms race guarantees that one is conquered by ones enemies? Let's see what history would have to prove:

1) Few participants of arms races are conquered, compared to non-participants. (Germany wouldn't lose WWII, or the Soviet Union the Cold war, for instance.)
2) For every arms race that does occur, and one country declines to or is unable to participate in it, that country will be conquered. (Iran being conquered by Iraq, for instance)
3) If an arms race is avoided, all potential parties to that arms race will be conquered.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349330)

3. Wrote the text editor vi.

But appearances to the contrary, he doesn't have sociopathic tendencies, and was genuinely just trying to help.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (4, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349812)

Which is oddly enough The inverse relation applies to Emacs.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349834)

He does look like slightly more hygienic Lutheran version of RMS.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

rishistar (662278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349352)

For those like me who are wondering who Bill Joy is:

  1. Wrote the text editor vi.

Did he ever get to meet the guy who wrote Emacs?

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349624)

For those like me who are wondering who Bill Joy is:

  1. Wrote the text editor vi.

Did he ever get to meet the guy who wrote Emacs?

James Gosling, his colleague, wrote his own implementation of Emacs. So yes, he did.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (3, Interesting)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349628)

Did he ever get to meet the guy who wrote Emacs?

Interesting comment. That guy was Richard Stallman, the same man who inadvertently brought down the Sun empire by creating the toolchain to create LInux.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (2, Informative)

l0g0s (821841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349380)

And also a former target of Ted Kaczynski. I still refer back to this fascinating article from time to time. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html [wired.com]

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349570)

Wrote the text editor vi.

That of course raises the question:
Who would win in a fight: Bill Joy or Richard Stallman?

Sure Stallman looks all scary with his beard and he has the benefit of mass, but BJ is wiry!

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (1)

trb (8509) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349626)

Yes, Bill Joy wrote vi and was an important part of the UC Berkeley Computer Science Research Group around 1980, when he was hired by the startup Sun.

I'm all for sharing, but I recognize the truly great things may not come from that environment.

I'm surprised that Bill Joy would say this.

UCB CSRG and Bill Joy based BSD UNIX on work from Bell Labs. Sun based its work on Bell Labs and UCB work. Without UNIX, there would be no BSD. Without UNIX and BSD there would be no Sun Microsystems. Without UNIX, there would be no Linux. You might note that UNIX was legally encumbered, but I'm saying that BSD, Sun's systems, and Linux (truly great things) came from the UNIX environment of sharing, even with the legal restrictions.

Who was Bill Joy? (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349738)

Yes, that's what he did in the past. It's sad and ironic that in the article he's just another being used to market the pyramid scam Microsoft.

Re:Who is Bill Joy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349814)

"Advocates relinquishing development of nano-tech, genetics, robotics, and AI. He feels that an arms race in any of those fields would be detrimental to human survival."

'Smother technology and it rebels' - Max Headroom

and Steve Jobs is (2, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349886)

...and Steve Jobs is the guy who could sell that guy an iPad and iPhone.

"Joy: I'm enjoying using my iPad. "

You know, people say "So what if Apple doesn't allow this, allow that? Just don't buy it.", the people leading the industry are buying it and they think a closed environment, the most closed environment since ENIAC (!) is a good thing. Bill Joy isn't some average rich billionaire either, he has his own way of thinking and expressing his views down to get blamed to be "anti technology" guy. Steve Jobs can sell iPad to that guy, be afraid really...

Re:and Steve Jobs is (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349956)

the people leading the industry are buying it and they think a closed environment, the most closed environment since ENIAC (!) is a good thing.

Of course they do; they all want to own that 'closed environment'.

Few things make a 'business leader' happier than owning a profitable monopoly.

Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349138)

The interview really runs the spectrum from the iPad to Microsoft, and from Green tech to Nano tech.

Call me when he discusses the Microsoft iPad that runs on Green Nano tech.

Sun software (5, Interesting)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349170)

I was using Sun workstations for a long time. Their hardware was decent and cheap. As for the software, the best thing about it was that you could remove most of the Sun crap and replace it with GNU software. And when the Linux kernel was reasonably stable and we got cheap PC hardware, it was time to ditch the Sun hardware too. That's the history of Sun and Sun software R&D in a nutshell (except for Java, which is another sad story).

Re:Sun software (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349366)

What planet are you on?
Sun Hardware was actually quite pricy... Their Balanced architecture made it hard to debate its real advantages during the Megahertz war, granted it was good hardware it made it a tough sale.
Sun actually had really good software that did things that Linux can still only dream of.
Of course I worked a lot with their High End stuff... and it sounds like you worked with their low end stuff. Having a big difference in useful ness of the software to the hardware.

Re:Sun software (4, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349594)

Sun Hardware was actually quite pricy...

Compared to PCs, yes, but not when compared to the rest of the 'real Unix' market. Back in the 90s we had servers and workstations from many Unix vendors and the Suns were generally the cheapest of the bunch and the easiest to work with.

Re:Sun software (2, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349598)

Their Balanced architecture made it hard to debate its real advantages during the Megahertz war

That was certainly the claim -- that their processors did more work than would be impled by pure clocks speeds. However, at my company, we benchmarked a 400MHz Sun/SPARC machine running Solaris against an 800MHz PIII Xeon running Linux. The Linux machine was twice as fast. Now our primary applications were large single-threaded jobs, and had we been running multi-threaded applications, perhaps the Sun would have performed better. For us, the equation was simple: X86 running Linux was half the cost and twice as fast.

I assume other people came to the same conclusion as us, hence reducing the market effectively available to Sun. My industry moved over to Linux and we never had a reason to look at Sun again. When Sun produced X86_64 boxes running Solaris, it was too late, all the software had been ported to Linux.

Re:Sun software (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350322)

My own benchmarking points to the Sun hardware doing just that.

Re:Sun software (1)

javiercero (518708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349662)

So someone was talking about WORKSTATIONS and you go off on a tangent about high end SERVERS?

Yeah, what planet are you on exactly?

Take me to the power, take me to the heat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349178)

Take me to the cleaners if it's open to the street
Something's got to pay off, something's got to break
Someone's got a fortune that they're begging me to take..

Poor Choice of Pundits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349288)

Really? The musings of the author of the Ugly Betty text editor (don't get me wrong- I am a fan of vi), and one time co-founder/chief scientist of a company that had the ball but dropped it due to to failing to grasp the dynamics of the very market they once reigned over is newsworthy? Does his scaredy-cat stance regarding future tech fail to astonish anyone else?

Good choice actually (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350014)

"scientist of a company that had the ball but dropped it due to to failing to grasp the dynamics of the very market they once reigned "

He is well aware of those mistakes, if you have read the scoop of the article. Also he tips that Microsoft could be going the same way if it keeps insanely trying failed attempts not learning from their mistakes. Sun failed because they weren't quick to make Solaris open and free, they still fail in hands of Oracle who kinda cancelled Solaris-X86.

Remember a company who dragged their entire OS to Trash, emptied it and restarted with a fresh and open source OS instead of trying to "fix" it? It is no wonder that they are being given as example several times in that interview. He says who doesn't have courage to do it are doomed to fail just like Sun.

Wrong word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349310)

He's main point is

It's "His main point is".

An important lesson (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349316)

Something that I've been saying for several years and which has been true for most of the last two decades:

I think if you wound the clock back, I'd like to think that we invented stuff in engineering that could have been marketed better. I'm happy to be working on something else. I worked on it for a very long time.

Sun had some really great stuff in their research divisions, and only ever commercialised a small fraction of it. During the .com years, they didn't need to - there was such a huge market for Sun hardware that every other part of their business could get away with making a loss and the company would still have been profitable. Afterwards, they failed to shift back to bringing products out of research.

Microsoft would do well to pay attention to this. For the last two decades, Windows and Office have kept the company afloat. MS Research produces a lot of cool stuff, but very little of it is made into products. There's a lot of stuff that Microsoft could commercialise, but with Windows and Office subsidising everything there's little incentive for them to bother.

Re:An important lesson (2, Interesting)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349580)

Sun had some really great stuff in their research divisions, and only ever commercialised a small fraction of it.

Actually, Sun may very well be the prime example of a demented institution with respect to technological creativity: In 1993, they had Self, easily the most advanced of all OOP languages out there, approaching the speed of C in numeric computations, and they decided to invent Java, of all things: an attempt at Smalltalk (a language one generation older than Self) with C++-like syntax (why, why, why? Wasn't one C++ enough?), and a lame one at best. Oh, and did I mention the terribly slow naive interpreter? Meanwhile, Self was almost killed. Lack of advertisement, lack of interest of the executives...reminds me of Xerox. Similar breed of people, I guess.

Re:An important lesson (0)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349764)

I think you have got the time line wrong there slightly. Java development started before Sun acquired Self and StrongTalk. It was inspired by Objective-C - there was a lot of flow of ideas between Sun and NeXT at the time, resulting in the OpenStep specification. The Self and StrongTalk teams were acquired specifically because Java was painfully slow and Sun needed people who knew how to implement Smalltalk-family languages competently.

Re:An important lesson (2, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350076)

Java development started before Sun acquired Self and StrongTalk.

Uhm, no. The Self team moved to Sun in 1990, before Java was conceived. Strongtalk and its inventors (Animorphic) were indeed conceived later, and even later acquired by Sun, but as far as I know, they had based their compiler technology on the contemporary Self implementation, which was precisely the thing that Sun had in their labs. I guess that Sun's reason for acquiring Animorphic was simply because the motivated people at Animorphic furthered their technology beyond what the Self team had managed to assemble. (Whether this would have been the case had the support of their management been greater, well, I guess we can only speculate on that today.)

Re:An important lesson (2, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349948)

I don't think any company makes money off of programing languages anymore. At least not big money.
You have RealBasic, and some Cobol, Fortran, and Ada suppliers that still seem to make a living but I doubt that even Microsoft makes much off of Visual Studio. Microsoft makes money off of Windows and people developing everything for Windows. It just isn't like the old days of Borland when a company could become huge off of programming languages.
Frankly there are just too many good free languages and tools out there.
Gcc
Eclipse.org
NetBeans
Perl
Ruby
FreePascal
The list goes on and on.
I never understood how Sun was going to make money on Java which frankly I do like.

Java is really a sad and ongoing story (2, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350182)

Well, Sun is kind of a company who manages to have their own language/framework on billion devices (J2ME) and still manages to lose money and prestige over it.

Every phone, almost every cell phone you see has a working J2ME and companies who can actually code does create miracles on it. Just imagine what if MS wasn't that blind and managed to get a compact .NET on that number of devices.

Or forget devices, look at CNET Download.com top downloads which is more amazing:
http://download.cnet.com/mac/most-popular/3101-20_4-0.html?tag=rb_content;contentNav [cnet.com]

It includes Limewire which is pure Java and it runs on one of the most hostile Java environments (both OS and userbase).

I can't understand how they CAN'T make money over it. I can't understand the patience of Java developers either... You make top of a general download sites top 10 list and you don't even get mentioned by the language vendor. They had a joke like portal (java.com) and it bugged some people at that sick company to convert it to a pure "download" page.

I mean Java is at a state where MS and Apple (with their culture) can't even dream of and they still manage to get acted like step child with weird rumors going on. I wonder if they have donated/sponsored a CENT to Limewire and Vuze, reason of 90% of Java desktop installations. If there was such a popular .NET open source application, MS would even assign some anonymous coders to that project.

Re:An important lesson (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349990)

It's been known for years that there is a major disconnect between MS Research and the rest of the company. Even way back when I actually worked with their stuff, I can remember making trips to Redmond and being shocked at the silo-like nature of every business unit. Not only were they competing against the world at large, but also against each other, with chronic NIH-syndrome.

Plus, I got the feeling that sales and marketing are 100% focused on seat sales, and I doubt that's changed much. They wouldn't know what to do with a lot of the weird and wonderful stuff MR comes up with.

Re:An important lesson (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350104)

Sun had some really great stuff in their research divisions, and only ever commercialised a small fraction of it.

OK, so going to the alternate history book, how should Sun have played the game better? IMHO, in the face of relentless upward commoditization of the server market Sun's best bet was to reinvent itself as a storage vendor where margins remain fat. And Sun knew that, they just bungled it. Intentionally licensing ZFS to be incompatible with Linux is the arguably the single mistake that finally killed them. This limited Sun's penetration of the storage market to a fraction of what would have been possible had they not mandated that enterprises must divide their resources between Linux and Solaris. Perhaps worse, it slowed down the rate of bug fixes. Sun just could not get ZFS stable fast enough, the way it had to be to break through the barriers to entry erected by entrenched competitors. In the alternate universe, Sun licensed ZFS under GPL and shoveled millions of storage boxes out the door, taking a respectable chunk of market from EMC and Netapp and lived happily ever after with an army of Linux developers and admins backing them up. In the real universe we have the remnant of Suns once glorious army huddled in despair, mainly obsessed with the possible demise of their own careers, thanks to Oracle having no better clue how to gain traction in a new market than Sun ever did.

Re:An important lesson (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350328)

What should they have done? Pushed OpenStep to the desktop and *7 on the mobile side aggressively from the early '90s. With *7, they have a complete graphical environment running on a 32-bit SPARC with 1MB of RAM with a Solaris kernel and execute-in-place support so apps could be run directly from ROM. As a result of their collaboration with NeXT, they had a complete OpenStep implementation running on Solaris 7.

They should have put a bit more effort into the low-power SPARC chips and sold a complete stack to mobile ODMs, taking the ARM route for the SPARC core so that other companies could buy the design, integrate it with their own DSP and other coprocessors, and then sell it to device manufacturers, who'd take the *7 stack and build handhelds.

The should have taken the OpenStep stack on Solaris and aggressively marketed it for the corporate desktop. NeXT was prohibited by a non-compete agreement with Apple from entering a number of markets with OPENSTEP, but Sun wasn't. They could have been shipping something like a corporate-focussed version of OS X, with a solid kernel and a clean and elegant UI, in the mid '90s. Unlike NeXT, they also had solid server offerings to go with the workstations, so you could buy a complete office network from Sun. Combine this with *7 and you've got Sun products everywhere.

Re:An important lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32350390)

Sun licensing ZFS under the GPL wouldn't help them sell more Sun products so I really fail to see your point. yes, its disappointing that they chose the CDDL instead of the GPL, but from a business perspective, there would have been no point to it. Sun doesn't need the GPL to sell its storage solutions and the people who consume storage on those devices don't care what the underlying file system is on those devices (i.e. an NFS or iSCSI export from a 7000 works just fine on Linux).

Non sequitur (2, Informative)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349408)

I don't think the open-source community focused on this stuff in the same way. In some sense, you only hit what you aim at. What was the goal of the Linux community--to replace Windows? One can imagine higher aspirations. I think the thing is that open source has been great for hobbyists to get involved, and hobbyists in the sense of the word as somebody who really loves it. That's not a negative thing at all. It's just not clear how it organizes a sustained and creative activity. Google is using this approach with Android. It's open source, but the money comes from someplace else. More broadly, how do people make a living and do something really creative? I think they have to organize it as a business. I'm all for sharing, but I recognize the truly great things may not come from that environment.

Open source generally means the developers need to work somewhere else for a living, and therefore the free project needs more developers than a funded project. Only a few are hired by companies and in the end they produce most of the code. (No news here, for example: Linux).
Android is a very bad example: they forked linux and made their own cathedral. He can't generalize with it. Linux, KDE, and Firefox, are innovative and "truly great".

Re:Non sequitur (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350002)

I think you are wrong about the big FOSS projects.
Writing software is hard work. If you look at the current submissions to Linux I think you will find that most of them are coming from big companies. If I am not mistaken IBM, Red Hat, Intel, and Novell are the four biggest contributors. KDE? Nokia now but Trolltech before.
Firefox? Mozilla pays developers so at least some of them are paid.
OpenOffice? Sun now Oracle.

Re:Non sequitur (4, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350068)

Linux, KDE, and Firefox, are innovative and "truly great".

IMO your comment is an example of how the word "innovative" has become so debased as to lose all meaning. Linux is my desktop and server OS of choice, but it's certainly not innovative. Linux is a monkey copy of Unix. Running on top of linux we have the Gnu userspace stack, which is a monkey copy of the Unix userspace. KDE is just another window manager. There's no significant innovation in it compared to its predecessors like the original Mac GUI, or the mouse-and-icons systems that predated the Mac. Firefox is not particularly innovative. NCSA Mosaic was innovative -- and had a proprietary license, although the source code was available.

Innovation is rare in the proprietary software world, and it's equally rare in the open-source world. If you want a good example of an innovative open-source project, probably one of the best is Apache. It wasn't the first web server, but it rapidly established itself as the dominant web server in the early days of the web.

This problem comes up again and again (1)

Z8 (1602647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349446)

From the article:

It's just not clear how [open source] organizes a sustained and creative activity. Google is using this approach with Android. It's open source, but the money comes from someplace else. More broadly, how do people make a living and do something really creative? I think they have to organize it as a business. I'm all for sharing, but I recognize the truly great things may not come from that environment.

I can hear a lot of Slashdotters complaining that open source has succeeded and there's nothing wrong with today's system, but Bill Joy has a point. Sure some people have managed to make a living at open source, but how much quality open source is produced compared to how much should be produced by society? Unless you're the RIAA, it's hard to complain about what might have been.

The idea that the system is working fine is barely believable if you're an open source programmer, but I'm sure the failure is on a totally different level if you're working in alternative energy. Anyone with a computer can code in their spare time, but I'm sure it takes millions to even experiment with some of these green technologies.

Re:This problem comes up again and again (2, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349712)

Experiments with green technology do not have to cost millions of dollars:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/kamwamba-windmill/ [wired.com]

I have also heard of people in rural areas who heat their homes by digging holes and using heat trapped in water a dozen or so feet below the soil; they sometimes do this without using pumps. There are farmers who create cheap biodiesel using plant material left over from the harvest. There are people who create biochar, and use the excess burning from that process as a source of energy (to cook with, or perhaps to drive some other chemical reaction). All of these things can be done on very low budgets.

It is true, though, that larger scale projects require more money, but that is not at all surprising. Really though, a lot of the work is done at universities on grant money, which is an entirely different world from businesses/community development.

Re:This problem comes up again and again (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349984)

Open Source is primarily about creating something, giving it away freely and letting someone else improve it if they want to - you *can* make money from it but that's just because many people, particularly business types, need someone to blame when something goes wrong before they will start using it; companies like Red Hat therefore make their money from support, consultancy and training.

Also, the big Open Source projects are run by foundations, organisations and large groups of people that have some money to put into development. Many of these projects have small contributions from hobbyist programmers, not to mention computer science students who have papers and dissertations to write as course work - after all, as a student it's probably far better for your CV to show an accepted code contribution into an Open Source project rather than a rejection by a commercial software company.

All respect to Bill Joy but he's left the computer geek phase of his life and his now into venture capitalism - as such, he's become like the countless other financial high-flyers who fail to grasp why someone would do something unless it was for monetary gain. There are lots of generous altruistic people out there who do stuff just "because it's there" or they truly want to leave a mark on this world by doing something for the benefit of others.

Open Source isn't perfect, just look at some of the times it takes get new releases out or even get to version 1.0. But making money is a potential *consequence* of Open Source, not the *cause*.

Re:This problem comes up again and again (3, Insightful)

Z8 (1602647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350266)

I'm a bit suspicious when someone says that open source is "about" something or another, because open source isn't an essay or a single individual. You're right that a lot of people (including myself) work on open source out of their own generosity.

But from a non-programmers point of view, or society's point of view, an important question is whether there is enough open source software as there should be. For instance, before there was a welfare system could you say that feeding the hungry was about altruism and rich people showing off. That's true, but what if it turned out that that there simply weren't enough generous people to clothe and feed everyone?

Re:This problem comes up again and again (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350434)

But again, the point is being missed here...

Why would an altruistic person stop to quantify their contribution to the overall effort? And if such a person did that, could it not serve as a deterrent to making a contribution in the first place?

Imagine that £50,000,000 needs to be raised for, say, famine relief in an African country. Altruistic people making charitable donations or doing sponsored Fun Runs don't sit there and work out who needs to generate what proportion of that money before they do any fund-raising, they just go out there and get what they can.

I do accept that this "well meaning anarchy" can mean disorganisation in some Open Source projects, which is precisely why you need the Mozilla Foundation and others to control things and bring the project into focus - but when there is a reliance on altruism, you simply cannot quantify everyone's contribution.

Quite an obligatory comment (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349496)

I'm all for sharing, but I recognize the truly great things may not come from that environment.

Yes, imagine the disaster that our civilization would have been today if scientists, for example, had shared their ideas...oh, wait, never mind...

Re:Quite an obligatory comment (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32349852)

The vast majority of those ideas were not "shared," but "sold." As in, work for us, we own your ideas and integrate them into products, perhaps patent them, and you get a salary.

I realize that doesn't really apply when you go back to the days of Copernicus, etc, but scientific progress to that point was very slow, because only rich curious people could engage in it.

I love open source and work with it all the time, but it's true the same maturation of the PC that has drained the excitement from Microsoft has had the same effect on Open Source, which also focuses on the PC realm. More of the excitement now is in mobile computing, which is highly proprietary.

The future of Green Energy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349696)

...is bleak. Its a dot-com bubble. Why?

Simple- the currently energy dilemmas that startups are getting attention for are centered around energy availability, delivery, and management. But a single battery technology or fuel cell technology, or even small nuclear generators can make all of the hype around energy management go away in one fell swoop. And those technologies are waiting in the wings and maturing to the point that we should see them well within our lifetimes- perhaps as early as another 5-10 years.

When energy shifts from a central distribution model to a local point-of-use generation and the grid is reduced, the consumption issues, scheduling- all those things that seem to be important to solve now- go away. We're left with a bunch of legacy technology that is targeted at an old system that becomes more and more irrelevant.

The reason this might not happen is because energy companies want to keep their stranglehold on the consumer. But as soon as they learn that they can buy into new technology and put a small battery of fuel cells in a neighborhood to power it and charge for it, theyll fall into line. Energy companies are very low-tech. They don't spend on innovations. They wait for innovations to occur, then adopt them.

So if you're an investor to make short term money- the green energy move is perfect. If you're the rest of us and can't handle another market crash when the whole thing deflates, then sorry. My advice is, don't work in that industry unless you're an owner.

Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32349800)

"His main point is"

not

"He is main point is"

He's right ! (2, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350102)

Sharing was a bad idea. Let's unplug the Internet !
BTW, I don't trust someone with that much hair and so few beard...

Bill who? (0, Flamebait)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32350138)

Oh, right, the guy who predicted we'd be all grey goo right now. Hrm, yeah, I can see why anyone cares about his opinion. Or not.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?