Slashdot Mirror

Jack Bryar's column over at Andover News comes out swinging; not at software patent holders themselves, but at the convoluted, corruptable machine of the USPTO. Bryar points out, among other things, that "the time available to Patent Office employees to process, review and approve a patent application -- an application which may run to hundreds of pages and be highly technical in nature -- has been reduced to less than eight man-hours." (Raise your hand if you think that's adequate.) Interesting, and mostly unflattering, information, too, about Patent Office head Todd Dickenson, and the changes which he's ushered in, or ignored.

Jack Bryar's column over at Andover News comes out swinging; not at software patent holders themselves, but at the convoluted, corruptable machine of the USPTO. Bryar points out, among other things, that "the time available to Patent Office employees to process, review and approve a patent application -- an application which may run to hundreds of pages and be highly technical in nature -- has been reduced to less than eight man-hours." (Raise your hand if you think that's adequate.) Interesting, and mostly unflattering, information, too, about Patent Office head Todd Dickenson, and the changes which he's ushered in, or ignored.

GeHa & others called our attention to the new AltaVista main page that went live late Saturday night (EDT). Apparently the formal kickoff for the redesign is scheduled for Monday and will include a live Lauryn Hill Webcast. I wonder what entertainer Google would choose to help publicize a major site change. Any ideas? UPDATE by RM Sunday morning: the new page is aparently on again, off again until the formal Monday launch. IMO it's not as useful as the old one even though AV is making much noise about it.

squistle writes I am one of the support technicians for Loki Entertainment Software. This afternoon I received a message on my voicemail to call "Nick"--name changed to protect the victim--who was having trouble starting CivCTP for Linux on his Pentium III RedHat 6.0 system. More Below...

When I called him back, he thanked me for my quick response and said that he was new to Linux and wasn't sure if he'd installed the game right. He then said, "This machine is going to used for... well, I'm a Microsoft employee and my group is doing a usability study on Linux."

As it turned out, he had unpacked the tarball (I had to explain what a tarball was) on the CD by double-clicking its package icon in gmc and then double-clicking the install icon that came up. He had absolutely no idea where the game had been installed, and didn't know how to search for it.

At this point I pointed out to him that CivCTP came with a graphical install script, conveniently labeled "install" and placed in the same directory as the tarball. And in fact, in that same directory was a text file labeled "README" that explained how to run the install program.

I had him pull up a terminal window and run `sh install` (since he had a 4.5 GB drive containing only a fresh install of RH6, he wasn't too concerned with finding his previous installation just yet), and as the graphical install smoothly copied the files into their proper place, we chatted amiably.

Me: "So what kind of system are you using for this?"
Him: "It's a... [pause to read label on the case] HP Vectra."
Me: "Umm, what processor does it use?"
Him: "It's a Pentium III, uh... 450 MHz?"
Me: "Yes, PIIIs do come in 450 MHz."

Eventually, the installation finished. I encouraged him to grab the patch from our website, and he thanked me and hung up.

Ordinarily, I am very respectful to newbies. I don't even laugh at them behind their backs--especially if they have been looking through man pages and reference books trying to figure things out. This time I almost peed my pants.

Then the big question dawned on me:

What does it mean when Big Bill gives brand new P-III 450's running Linux to game-playing newbies who don't read reference books, manuals, How-To's or README's for a usability study?

Can you say "viable desktop environment?"

Note from RM: Yes, we verified the story. All parties are real.

The following story is somewhat alarming. You must read it if you own a domain name. It is not a hoax; I tested the security hole on a domain name I own. It worked. A large number of readers have written us about it. The Network Solutions site was already overloaded and responding slowly in the wee hours and is probably going to be hit hard all day. They have made a monumental mistake here. Click below to read Slashdot reader Ralph Brandi's excellent description of what's going on. Update posted 2:10 p.m. EDT - see bottom of the story (below).

Ralph writes: Network Solutions has starting spamming some of its customers with notices that include, among other things, the news that they've set up a free e-mail account for you, without bothering to ask first, at their new dot com now mail Hotmail clone. They've even taken the liberty of assigning you a password:

3. Lastly, we are pleased to offer you a FREE e-mail account using our new dot com now mail service. Because it's Web-based, you can use it in the office, at home or on the road. You'll need the following information to set up your account:

 >>>>>>>>>>>>Login name:  domainid
 >>>>>>>>>>>>Password:    domainidnsi

Note that nifty password? It's the same pattern for every domain they've registered an e-mail address for.

Big security [bleep]up. If someone beats you to your account and "guesses" your password, now they can masquerade as you, and if they change the password, you can't even get into the account.

I've already gone into my "accounts", verified that they exist, and changed the passwords. I know that they exist because when I entered other domain IDs I control that I wasn't spammed at, I was returned to the login screen rather than being brought to a presumably newly-created mail page.

I called Network Solutions tech support to demand that they remove the accounts, but the moron on the line didn't understand that they were doing something incredibly boneheaded and wouldn't listen to my explanation. The person on the line insisted that they wouldn't create an account without me signing up for it, but I didn't have to sign up; it was already in place.

The mail I received started out "As a customer of Network Solutions or one of our Premier Program members", so I'm not sure if they're doing this for everyone or just for people who bought their domains through some of the big providers like Pair who are part of the "Premier Program". If you get the e-mail from them, I suggest logging on immediately and changing your password, whether you wanted the account or not. Maybe with a little prodding, Network Solutions will realize they screwed up and delete the accounts and change their procedure.

Update posted 2:10 p.m. EDT by RM - doulos writes "If your tired of getting a busy signal at the 703-... phone number, I found that they have a nice staff of people waiting to answer your questions and complaints at the following TOLL FREE phone number: 1-888-642-9675

They did refer me to the toll-line, but I (politely) insisted that because this was a matter of security that they had initiated, that I should be able to at least speak with a supervisor. They nice person on the phone _politely_ complied, and I was able to put in my request to have those e-mail accounts removed with my appropriate domains.

I just thought I would submit this as an article update because I felt maybe if the phone # was posted as an update it might help alieve some of the offense of having to call, by at least removing the toll from being on your nickel..."

SupaDupaFly writes "I noticed one of your readers asking for information about setting up a nonprofit organization for recycling old, yet perfectly usable computers. Well, I work for one called Share The Technology in NJ and it is a very worthy cause. We accept donated computers and fix, clean, and upgrade them for donation to underpriveleged schools, nonprofits, and disabled individuals. If any readers would like information on how to set up one of these organizations in their hometown, or would like to help out this one, shoot an email to share@libertynet.org for information. " Also, RobLimo has written a piece about a Baltimore, MD based organization called Geeks Into the Streets which aims to do something similar. I can't emphasize how much of a good thing this is. It's nice to see that there are folks attempting to find a good use for old resources.

Joe Shaw has sent us a feature on a topic that is near and dear to many of our hearts: Linux advocacy. Specifically related to the recent mindcraft email posting, and practically any journalist who writes an article with a non-glowing comment about Linux, and the hoards that swoop down and proceed to shove them through a cuisinart. Hit the link to read it. The following was written by Slashdot Reader Joe Shaw

Zeal, Advocacy, and the Future of Linux The future of Linux in the computing world, now so centralized around the Internet, worries me.

It REALLY worries me.

What worries me, specifically, is the light that Linux is being put in because of very bad advocacy. Anti-advocacy, almost, from those who claim to love and support it the most. Rude, insulting, and obscene attacks fly out of the "mouths" of these people to anyone who speaks one thing about Linux that doesn't put it into an immaculate light. Never before has the ordinary, everyday user had such a voice in the software industry. In this Internet-centralized computing world, the everyday advocacy by the average user can have huge ramifications on how Linux is presented to the world.

Everyone remembers the Amiga, OS/2, the BeBox. For their times, they were technologically superior to the Intel/Microsoft framework that dominated. Their (relative) failures to reach a substantial portion of the marketplace cannot be narrowed down to one cause, but among the many, advocacy was definitely a poignant one. A defensive and often rude greater-than-thou attitude without addressing the shortcomings of their products pushed away possible supporters and hurt their chances of widespread support. Rumors, myths, and speculation ("The Amiga is just a game machine! It couldn't possibly by used for any productive task.") became widespread. An inability to dispel this hearsay through supportive, informative, and polite advocacy implied that it was _not_ unsubstantiated, regardless of how untrue it really was. As

members of this open source community and supporters of our projects and ideals, it is important to correct erroneous reports and dispel FUD[1] directed at us, but it must be done in a polite and professional manner. WE are the spokespeople for our community, for our ideals, and for our projects. There is no PR department in the open source community that can sugar coat our feelings and statements. Some of our most vocal proponents, such as ESR, RMS, and Linus, have somewhat taken on this responsibility, but even they are flamed and criticized. Without politeness, professionalism, and pride we will dig ourselves into a hole that we may not be able to get out of. And the shovels have already broken ground. Take, for example, the posting of the EXTREMELY embarrassing comments directed at Mindcraft regarding their Linux vs. NT benchmarks[2]. Want more dirt? After an article[3] by Jack Bryar from the Andover News Network that he himself admitted was hasty ex post facto was posted to Slashdot[4], he was flooded with hateful email telling him hundreds of different places to stick it. Was the article appropriate? Certainly not from our point of view, but many readers courteously and meticulously described the errors in his article, much to his delight. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the proper way to handle with this situation, not with obscenities. Fortunately, in his response article[5], he put the flames in a much better light than anyone could reasonably expect. This is not a slam on the Slashdot folk; it is a problem that the entire community suffers from. Nobody is perfect, obviously, but please give thought before you shoot off an email like the ones mentioned. There ARE real people with real feelings on the other end and many times they have a valid point.

You are all ambassadors for the open source community whether you like it or not. You don't want to be ostracized and called "rabid fanatics" or "zealots" by the rest of the world. It defeats our purpose and will ultimately doom us. Advocate Linux. Advocate open source. Don't put down competitors. Despite what some of you may think, many in (and perhaps most of) the community do NOT believe that Microsoft is the enemy and the evil corporation that we must kill. Rather than narrowing in on destroying Microsoft, focus on this: improving the software. And if you can't code, there is still much more you can do: dispel the rumors, the myths, the speculation, the FUD. Test the programs that these people write, offer well-thought suggestions, report bugs. Many coders aren't good writers and their programs need documentation. Offer to help them with it or join the Linux Documentation Project if that's a strength. The programmers are only a part of making this thing work, although the most glorified in this community. But they simply can't do it alone.

[1] Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt
[2] Linux Net Rage
[3] Article 1
[4] Slashdot
[5] Response to article 1

Suggested reading:

Linux Advocacy HOWTO (part of the Linux Documentation Project). Paul L. Rogers.

"Thoughts from the Furnace." Rob Malda. Article and user comments.

Regarding "The Charity Case for Red Hat." Frank de Lange. (Author's side note: at the time of writing, the first listed user comment is EXACTLY what I am talking about. From an "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot: "A good reply but the original article was such a vapid pile of unresearched dogsh*t as not to even garner a reply.")

"Rebuttal to `The Charity Case for Red Hat.'" Dale Merrick.

Comments on "Andover News, the sequel: A Well Braziered Bryar" on Slashdot. Frank de Lange. Article and user comments (particularly from Lemmy Caution, mastagee, Skyshadow, x mani x, and more.)

Joe Shaw has sent us a feature on a topic that is near and dear to many of our hearts: Linux advocacy. Specifically related to the recent mindcraft email posting, and practically any journalist who writes an article with a non-glowing comment about Linux, and the hoards that swoop down and proceed to shove them through a cuisinart. Hit the link to read it. The following was written by Slashdot Reader Joe Shaw

Zeal, Advocacy, and the Future of Linux The future of Linux in the computing world, now so centralized around the Internet, worries me.

It REALLY worries me.

What worries me, specifically, is the light that Linux is being put in because of very bad advocacy. Anti-advocacy, almost, from those who claim to love and support it the most. Rude, insulting, and obscene attacks fly out of the "mouths" of these people to anyone who speaks one thing about Linux that doesn't put it into an immaculate light. Never before has the ordinary, everyday user had such a voice in the software industry. In this Internet-centralized computing world, the everyday advocacy by the average user can have huge ramifications on how Linux is presented to the world.

Everyone remembers the Amiga, OS/2, the BeBox. For their times, they were technologically superior to the Intel/Microsoft framework that dominated. Their (relative) failures to reach a substantial portion of the marketplace cannot be narrowed down to one cause, but among the many, advocacy was definitely a poignant one. A defensive and often rude greater-than-thou attitude without addressing the shortcomings of their products pushed away possible supporters and hurt their chances of widespread support. Rumors, myths, and speculation ("The Amiga is just a game machine! It couldn't possibly by used for any productive task.") became widespread. An inability to dispel this hearsay through supportive, informative, and polite advocacy implied that it was _not_ unsubstantiated, regardless of how untrue it really was. As

members of this open source community and supporters of our projects and ideals, it is important to correct erroneous reports and dispel FUD[1] directed at us, but it must be done in a polite and professional manner. WE are the spokespeople for our community, for our ideals, and for our projects. There is no PR department in the open source community that can sugar coat our feelings and statements. Some of our most vocal proponents, such as ESR, RMS, and Linus, have somewhat taken on this responsibility, but even they are flamed and criticized. Without politeness, professionalism, and pride we will dig ourselves into a hole that we may not be able to get out of. And the shovels have already broken ground. Take, for example, the posting of the EXTREMELY embarrassing comments directed at Mindcraft regarding their Linux vs. NT benchmarks[2]. Want more dirt? After an article[3] by Jack Bryar from the Andover News Network that he himself admitted was hasty ex post facto was posted to Slashdot[4], he was flooded with hateful email telling him hundreds of different places to stick it. Was the article appropriate? Certainly not from our point of view, but many readers courteously and meticulously described the errors in his article, much to his delight. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the proper way to handle with this situation, not with obscenities. Fortunately, in his response article[5], he put the flames in a much better light than anyone could reasonably expect. This is not a slam on the Slashdot folk; it is a problem that the entire community suffers from. Nobody is perfect, obviously, but please give thought before you shoot off an email like the ones mentioned. There ARE real people with real feelings on the other end and many times they have a valid point.

You are all ambassadors for the open source community whether you like it or not. You don't want to be ostracized and called "rabid fanatics" or "zealots" by the rest of the world. It defeats our purpose and will ultimately doom us. Advocate Linux. Advocate open source. Don't put down competitors. Despite what some of you may think, many in (and perhaps most of) the community do NOT believe that Microsoft is the enemy and the evil corporation that we must kill. Rather than narrowing in on destroying Microsoft, focus on this: improving the software. And if you can't code, there is still much more you can do: dispel the rumors, the myths, the speculation, the FUD. Test the programs that these people write, offer well-thought suggestions, report bugs. Many coders aren't good writers and their programs need documentation. Offer to help them with it or join the Linux Documentation Project if that's a strength. The programmers are only a part of making this thing work, although the most glorified in this community. But they simply can't do it alone.

[1] Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt
[2] Linux Net Rage
[3] Article 1
[4] Slashdot
[5] Response to article 1

Suggested reading:

Linux Advocacy HOWTO (part of the Linux Documentation Project). Paul L. Rogers.

"Thoughts from the Furnace." Rob Malda. Article and user comments.

Regarding "The Charity Case for Red Hat." Frank de Lange. (Author's side note: at the time of writing, the first listed user comment is EXACTLY what I am talking about. From an "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot: "A good reply but the original article was such a vapid pile of unresearched dogsh*t as not to even garner a reply.")

"Rebuttal to `The Charity Case for Red Hat.'" Dale Merrick.

Comments on "Andover News, the sequel: A Well Braziered Bryar" on Slashdot. Frank de Lange. Article and user comments (particularly from Lemmy Caution, mastagee, Skyshadow, x mani x, and more.)

knarf writes "

About a week ago I posted a rebuttal to a column by Jack Bryar as published in Andover News to this forum." Click below for the full text from knarf-it's not pretty what happened - and check out the follow-up from Jack Bryar, as a cautionary mea culpa.

[From knarf]

Unfortunately, the original header I included with the message was edited out. In this header I stated that the author of the column had already received a copy of the message. A couple of minutes later someone suggested that people mail my rebuttal to Jack Bryar.

Well, they did, it now seems. And they did many more things. Like send insulting messages, flood his mailbox with repeating messages, and other kindergarten-tricks.

In his current column, Jack Bryar apologizes for the errors he made when writing that column. He also points out the difference between the readers of /. and Linux Today. I originally learned about Jack's first column from Linux Today, as did many others. Like me, some of them took up the issue with the author by correcting his errors and explaining the intricacies of the free software model(s).

Then my article arrived on /.

Hell broke loose. I quote Jack Bryar's current column:

After the "/." posting I got letters that began "hey sh**head go f*** yourself with the money you?re taking from Microsoft! What drugs are you on?" (Way too much coffee, actually). One writer, running out of invective finally sputtered that I was another Jesse Berst! (Somebody should be deeply insulted). After reading these things for a while I became convinced that I could make a fortune distributing a good Linux-compatible spell checker.

Folks, ranting and yelling is not taken as a proof of intelligence by most people. This is supposed to be a forum for "nerds", people with above-average intelligence. Let's make sure we do not spoil the reputation of the free software community by behaving like we just graduated from kindergarten then...

And if in doubt, just query your copy of the Jargon file. Look up the description of `Hacker Speech Style' and draw your own conclusions.

Frank de Lange

knarf writes "

About a week ago I posted a rebuttal to a column by Jack Bryar as published in Andover News to this forum." Click below for the full text from knarf-it's not pretty what happened - and check out the follow-up from Jack Bryar, as a cautionary mea culpa.

[From knarf]

Unfortunately, the original header I included with the message was edited out. In this header I stated that the author of the column had already received a copy of the message. A couple of minutes later someone suggested that people mail my rebuttal to Jack Bryar.

Well, they did, it now seems. And they did many more things. Like send insulting messages, flood his mailbox with repeating messages, and other kindergarten-tricks.

In his current column, Jack Bryar apologizes for the errors he made when writing that column. He also points out the difference between the readers of /. and Linux Today. I originally learned about Jack's first column from Linux Today, as did many others. Like me, some of them took up the issue with the author by correcting his errors and explaining the intricacies of the free software model(s).

Then my article arrived on /.

Hell broke loose. I quote Jack Bryar's current column:

After the "/." posting I got letters that began "hey sh**head go f*** yourself with the money you?re taking from Microsoft! What drugs are you on?" (Way too much coffee, actually). One writer, running out of invective finally sputtered that I was another Jesse Berst! (Somebody should be deeply insulted). After reading these things for a while I became convinced that I could make a fortune distributing a good Linux-compatible spell checker.

Folks, ranting and yelling is not taken as a proof of intelligence by most people. This is supposed to be a forum for "nerds", people with above-average intelligence. Let's make sure we do not spoil the reputation of the free software community by behaving like we just graduated from kindergarten then...

And if in doubt, just query your copy of the Jargon file. Look up the description of `Hacker Speech Style' and draw your own conclusions.

Frank de Lange

knarf writes "

About a week ago I posted a rebuttal to a column by Jack Bryar as published in Andover News to this forum." Click below for the full text from knarf-it's not pretty what happened - and check out the follow-up from Jack Bryar, as a cautionary mea culpa.

[From knarf]

Unfortunately, the original header I included with the message was edited out. In this header I stated that the author of the column had already received a copy of the message. A couple of minutes later someone suggested that people mail my rebuttal to Jack Bryar.

Well, they did, it now seems. And they did many more things. Like send insulting messages, flood his mailbox with repeating messages, and other kindergarten-tricks.

In his current column, Jack Bryar apologizes for the errors he made when writing that column. He also points out the difference between the readers of /. and Linux Today. I originally learned about Jack's first column from Linux Today, as did many others. Like me, some of them took up the issue with the author by correcting his errors and explaining the intricacies of the free software model(s).

Then my article arrived on /.

Hell broke loose. I quote Jack Bryar's current column:

After the "/." posting I got letters that began "hey sh**head go f*** yourself with the money you?re taking from Microsoft! What drugs are you on?" (Way too much coffee, actually). One writer, running out of invective finally sputtered that I was another Jesse Berst! (Somebody should be deeply insulted). After reading these things for a while I became convinced that I could make a fortune distributing a good Linux-compatible spell checker.

Folks, ranting and yelling is not taken as a proof of intelligence by most people. This is supposed to be a forum for "nerds", people with above-average intelligence. Let's make sure we do not spoil the reputation of the free software community by behaving like we just graduated from kindergarten then...

And if in doubt, just query your copy of the Jargon file. Look up the description of `Hacker Speech Style' and draw your own conclusions.

Frank de Lange

knarf noted a story linked from LinuxToday about Red Hat's IPO called Red Hat's Charity Case at Andover News. Several people noted that the story has many errors. Fortunately knarf has written a pretty good summary of what he considers wrong about the article. Several of them are a bit extreme, but many are good points. If you read the original, this is a good rebuttal worth reading.

The following was written by Slashdot Reader knarf

Hi Jack,

Being a former journalist myself, I was rather disappointed at your recent column about the upcoming RedHat IPO. To be quite frank, there were more faulty facts in this short column than I thought possible. A quick summary:

1: Unix has been, and still is a money-maker for a lot of companies. Look aroud large datacenters, network hubs, computer centers ad financial institutions and you'll find a lot of big, expensive Unix-based systems doing all the heavy work.

2: Unix was not thrown in the `public domain' as you suggest. AT&T fought long and hard just to try to prevent others from making something which resembled Unix. The mere mentioning of the name `Unix' in connection to something not from AT&T was enough to be sued, hence the frequent use of words like `Un*x'. This also led to names like XENIX, AIX, SINIX, ULTRIX, DG/UX, etc. The rights to Unix have moved from company to company for a while, currently the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) is the `owner' of the System V code. The Berkeley code was `cleaned' and released as BSD 4.3 lite (the `lite' stands for `without AT&T proprietary code'), and serves as the code base for some commercial and a lot of open Unix varieties. It is the Berkeley version which is in the public domain (under the BSD license), not AT&T's `original'. The BSD license has nothing to do with the GPL license, under which Linux is licensed.

3: The differences between all those Unix varieties have been greatly exaggerated, mostly due to marketing and media forces. Unix is not a perfect operating system, but at it's core it is rather clean and consistent. Any user of any Unix will have little trouble moving to another variety. That is not to say they'll like the experience, but THAT is something completely different. For some reason people tend to get religious about their choice of operating system, be it Unix version X of Windows version Y. For software developers, there are several ways the differences between the Unix versions can be solved. the GNU auto* tools are a prime example of this. Writing software for several varieties of Unix is no different from writing software for several varieties of Microsoft Windows, but at least the Unix developers have the benefit of the GNU tools and the often much better documented API's. In case of the free Unix versions, there ARE no `undocumented' API's since you have access to all source code.

4: Linux Torvalds did not create the `command set' for the kernel which got to be called `Linux'. He initiated development on the kernel, and has been managing the development effort ever since. What is generally called `Linux' is actually a distribution containing the Linux kernel combined with the GNU tools (which provide most basic user commands) and a lot of other software. From very early versions onward the X window system has been part of those distributions, making it possible to run GUI command interfaces on top of the kernel. Most early distributions contained the XView toolkit and the ol(v)wm window manager, giving Linux users access to the well-known `Open Look' style of user interface which has been available to Sun Microsystems users for a long time. Open Look eventually got replaced by CDE on Sun systems, while other toolkits (Motif, Qt, GTK) took over the Linux `desktop'. But early Linux users had access to a GUI interface as well.

5: Linux distributions all use the same kernel (give or take a patchlevel number, eg. 2.2.5 versus 2.2.9). They all use the same GNU tools (the `command set'). They all use the same X window environment. They all use the same basic toolkits and language interpreters (Perl, Tcl/Tk, etc.). The differences between distributions are mainly in the locations of these tools (`where are they installed'), and in the extra stuff they deliver (`what more comes with this thing?'. There are some cases where some distributors are quick in picking up on the latest developments, while others wait for stuff to calm down before moving to the `latest and greatest' version of some basic component. An example of this is the choice of C library (leading to incompatibilities between distributions) or the choice of loader format (a.out, ELF). There are all temporary problems though. The move from the a.out format to the ELF format is all but forgotten by most Linux users. The move to the GNU C libary will probably fare likewise.

6: There is nothing to be gained for Linux distributors in making their version of `Linux' incompatible with others. They rely on both open source developers as well as commercial vendors to supply them with software to run on their version of `Linux'. If they behave like you foretell, they'll loose support from the hard-core open source developers, and the commercial vendors will probably follow. Commercial vendors would rather support one or two basic varieties of an operating system, not a whole bunch of them. If a Linux distributor wants those applications to run on his distribution, he'll make sure it does. Now of course there is the question *which* distribution a commercial vendor will support. If they are smart, they'll support one or two (say RedHat and Caldera), but make sure their software runs on the `official' (not finished yet) `Linux Standard Base' or `File System Base' based distributions. That way, everybody wins, and they'll sell more software.

7: Sure, the Linux desktop user interface can be `improved'. But those improvements are probably not what you think they are. The command line will not disappear. It is a much to capable and valuable tool in the hands of even lesser Unix gods to be done away with. If RedHat is hiring people to make their Linux distribution more palpable to the Windows user community, that's fine. It will still be Linux. Until now, RedHat has licensed all their developments under the GPL (GNU Public License), and they are likely to continue doing this. If they don', they'll loose support from the open source developers (look at what happened to the KDE initiative, although that rift has been mended by making the Qt toolkit open source `compliant'). So they will most likely remain smart and keep the GPL flag flying.

8: RedHat is not losing $130.000.000, they lost $130.000 dollars. This is pure disinformation, and might be cause for RedHat to sue you. Please make sure you know what you write about before starting.

9: There is no such thing as `VA Linux'. VA Linux Systems is a hardware vendor in support of Linux. They support several distributions. They may have their preferences (on their website it says `...caldera is quite close to Redhat, but i've found I prefer RH's gui over caldera...'), but they point anyone interested to both RedHat as well as Caldera and SuSE and cdrom.com (Slackware, others) and linuxmall.com (all distributions, $1.89 per CD-ROM, also FreeBSD by the way).

10: I do not remember Microsoft being a proponent for open source software, not them being a beneficiary. On the contrary, Microsoft has from the very start supported a closed, `business-like' approach to software development. They have from time to time thrown some goodies at the developer crowd to get them aquainted with Microsoft tools, but that has nothing to do with `supporting volunteerism'.

11: Netscape did not create a `potential operating system', they created a browser with and API which was seen by Microsoft as a threat to their operating environments. The browser would commoditize Windows, since it would not matter anymore which platform was used to run the interface to whatever applications were used. Microsoft has done it's best to counter this move by embracing and extending Java and the `WWW protocol set', and Sun Microsystems has helped by being too tight-minded with regard to Java extensions. IBM has indeed helped the Java `platform', and is still doing so. They seem to be on a quest to keep Microsoft out of the higher-end application service market. Of course they are not benevolent gods, but they are much less malign than you portray them. Sun Microsystems HAS given access to the Java source code (throug htheir `community licensing scheme'), IBM HAS given and still gives a lot of software to the community (take a look at their AlphaWorks site, www.alphaworks.ibm.com).

12: Your comments about Microsoft flirting with Linux border the ridiculous. What do you think would happen if/when Microsoft embeds Linux in their products? What system would run Linux software better? A Microsoft operating system with embedded Linux, or Linux? You might want to compare this with running Windows software on Unix systems (which is possible by using products like WABI, or toolkits like WINE). Remember, when IBM called OS/2 `a better Windows than Windows'? What did you think when they said that? Did you try it? Now, Microsoft would come along and call their Windows 2001 `a better Linux than Linux'. What would you think when they say that? Would you try it? Even more important, what would you write about it?

13: My final comment, number thirteen. About your final comments. Why do you insist that people have to want to use `Microsoft Linux' to make it a viable proposition? I can very well do without Microsoft, and so can a lot of other people. This has nothing to do with ideology, but everything with stability, choice, and performance. I get more work done in less time using non-Microsoft products, and time (as you should know) is money, especially for the people who pay me to do my work. And why do you think the future and viability of Linux is dependent on the future of RedHat? If RedHat disappears of the face of the earth, there is still SusE (rather popular here in Europe), TurboLinux (rather popular in the Far East), Debian (rather popular amongst developers anywhere and everywhere), Slackware (with a dedicated crowd of followers), Caldera (rather popular in a lot of businesses), etc. Should I go on?

I won't. Linux has the marks of becoming an important player in a lot of markets, with or without RedHat. You may be right (or you may be wrong) when you say an investment in RedHat is not the best way to make money. But you are dead wrong in your reasoning against RedHat in particular or Linux in general. The IT market is not dependent on Microsoft, it can survive without them. So can Linux. Unix is not dead, and it does not seem to be dying either. There is a lot of money to be made in all thing Unix, and Linux is one of those things.

Linus did not start Linux to `kill Microsoft', and most Linux users use Linux because it fits their needs in a way that Microsoft Windows can not. If Microsoft embeds Linux within their own stuff, that's fine with me (as long as they abide to the licensing terms). Since Linux withoug any Microsoft-extensions fits my needs, I do not see what I would gain from such a development, so I will refrain from using `Microsoft Linux'. If they do produce some useful extension (and release it under the GPL) I will use it. If they embrace and extend Linux in the way they embraced and extended other `standards' I will not use their extensions, because I do not want to be tied to a single vendor. Such ties cost money, as experience has taught me. And I;ve got better things to do with my (or rather my employers) money than give it to some company because I am locked in their embrace.

My parting comment? Please do some more research the next time, or ask a knowledgeable person to proof-read your column. It may `only be a column', but a lot of people tend to trust the media a little too much for their own good. As you probably know...

With kind regards,

Frank de Lange

/* Former editor in chief, Unix Info magazine
* now full-time developer... mostly Unix, some Windows
* speaking for himself, not his employer
*/

knarf noted a story linked from LinuxToday about Red Hat's IPO called Red Hat's Charity Case at Andover News. Several people noted that the story has many errors. Fortunately knarf has written a pretty good summary of what he considers wrong about the article. Several of them are a bit extreme, but many are good points. If you read the original, this is a good rebuttal worth reading.

The following was written by Slashdot Reader knarf

Hi Jack,

Being a former journalist myself, I was rather disappointed at your recent column about the upcoming RedHat IPO. To be quite frank, there were more faulty facts in this short column than I thought possible. A quick summary:

1: Unix has been, and still is a money-maker for a lot of companies. Look aroud large datacenters, network hubs, computer centers ad financial institutions and you'll find a lot of big, expensive Unix-based systems doing all the heavy work.

2: Unix was not thrown in the `public domain' as you suggest. AT&T fought long and hard just to try to prevent others from making something which resembled Unix. The mere mentioning of the name `Unix' in connection to something not from AT&T was enough to be sued, hence the frequent use of words like `Un*x'. This also led to names like XENIX, AIX, SINIX, ULTRIX, DG/UX, etc. The rights to Unix have moved from company to company for a while, currently the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) is the `owner' of the System V code. The Berkeley code was `cleaned' and released as BSD 4.3 lite (the `lite' stands for `without AT&T proprietary code'), and serves as the code base for some commercial and a lot of open Unix varieties. It is the Berkeley version which is in the public domain (under the BSD license), not AT&T's `original'. The BSD license has nothing to do with the GPL license, under which Linux is licensed.

3: The differences between all those Unix varieties have been greatly exaggerated, mostly due to marketing and media forces. Unix is not a perfect operating system, but at it's core it is rather clean and consistent. Any user of any Unix will have little trouble moving to another variety. That is not to say they'll like the experience, but THAT is something completely different. For some reason people tend to get religious about their choice of operating system, be it Unix version X of Windows version Y. For software developers, there are several ways the differences between the Unix versions can be solved. the GNU auto* tools are a prime example of this. Writing software for several varieties of Unix is no different from writing software for several varieties of Microsoft Windows, but at least the Unix developers have the benefit of the GNU tools and the often much better documented API's. In case of the free Unix versions, there ARE no `undocumented' API's since you have access to all source code.

4: Linux Torvalds did not create the `command set' for the kernel which got to be called `Linux'. He initiated development on the kernel, and has been managing the development effort ever since. What is generally called `Linux' is actually a distribution containing the Linux kernel combined with the GNU tools (which provide most basic user commands) and a lot of other software. From very early versions onward the X window system has been part of those distributions, making it possible to run GUI command interfaces on top of the kernel. Most early distributions contained the XView toolkit and the ol(v)wm window manager, giving Linux users access to the well-known `Open Look' style of user interface which has been available to Sun Microsystems users for a long time. Open Look eventually got replaced by CDE on Sun systems, while other toolkits (Motif, Qt, GTK) took over the Linux `desktop'. But early Linux users had access to a GUI interface as well.

5: Linux distributions all use the same kernel (give or take a patchlevel number, eg. 2.2.5 versus 2.2.9). They all use the same GNU tools (the `command set'). They all use the same X window environment. They all use the same basic toolkits and language interpreters (Perl, Tcl/Tk, etc.). The differences between distributions are mainly in the locations of these tools (`where are they installed'), and in the extra stuff they deliver (`what more comes with this thing?'. There are some cases where some distributors are quick in picking up on the latest developments, while others wait for stuff to calm down before moving to the `latest and greatest' version of some basic component. An example of this is the choice of C library (leading to incompatibilities between distributions) or the choice of loader format (a.out, ELF). There are all temporary problems though. The move from the a.out format to the ELF format is all but forgotten by most Linux users. The move to the GNU C libary will probably fare likewise.

6: There is nothing to be gained for Linux distributors in making their version of `Linux' incompatible with others. They rely on both open source developers as well as commercial vendors to supply them with software to run on their version of `Linux'. If they behave like you foretell, they'll loose support from the hard-core open source developers, and the commercial vendors will probably follow. Commercial vendors would rather support one or two basic varieties of an operating system, not a whole bunch of them. If a Linux distributor wants those applications to run on his distribution, he'll make sure it does. Now of course there is the question *which* distribution a commercial vendor will support. If they are smart, they'll support one or two (say RedHat and Caldera), but make sure their software runs on the `official' (not finished yet) `Linux Standard Base' or `File System Base' based distributions. That way, everybody wins, and they'll sell more software.

7: Sure, the Linux desktop user interface can be `improved'. But those improvements are probably not what you think they are. The command line will not disappear. It is a much to capable and valuable tool in the hands of even lesser Unix gods to be done away with. If RedHat is hiring people to make their Linux distribution more palpable to the Windows user community, that's fine. It will still be Linux. Until now, RedHat has licensed all their developments under the GPL (GNU Public License), and they are likely to continue doing this. If they don', they'll loose support from the open source developers (look at what happened to the KDE initiative, although that rift has been mended by making the Qt toolkit open source `compliant'). So they will most likely remain smart and keep the GPL flag flying.

8: RedHat is not losing $130.000.000, they lost $130.000 dollars. This is pure disinformation, and might be cause for RedHat to sue you. Please make sure you know what you write about before starting.

9: There is no such thing as `VA Linux'. VA Linux Systems is a hardware vendor in support of Linux. They support several distributions. They may have their preferences (on their website it says `...caldera is quite close to Redhat, but i've found I prefer RH's gui over caldera...'), but they point anyone interested to both RedHat as well as Caldera and SuSE and cdrom.com (Slackware, others) and linuxmall.com (all distributions, $1.89 per CD-ROM, also FreeBSD by the way).

10: I do not remember Microsoft being a proponent for open source software, not them being a beneficiary. On the contrary, Microsoft has from the very start supported a closed, `business-like' approach to software development. They have from time to time thrown some goodies at the developer crowd to get them aquainted with Microsoft tools, but that has nothing to do with `supporting volunteerism'.

11: Netscape did not create a `potential operating system', they created a browser with and API which was seen by Microsoft as a threat to their operating environments. The browser would commoditize Windows, since it would not matter anymore which platform was used to run the interface to whatever applications were used. Microsoft has done it's best to counter this move by embracing and extending Java and the `WWW protocol set', and Sun Microsystems has helped by being too tight-minded with regard to Java extensions. IBM has indeed helped the Java `platform', and is still doing so. They seem to be on a quest to keep Microsoft out of the higher-end application service market. Of course they are not benevolent gods, but they are much less malign than you portray them. Sun Microsystems HAS given access to the Java source code (throug htheir `community licensing scheme'), IBM HAS given and still gives a lot of software to the community (take a look at their AlphaWorks site, www.alphaworks.ibm.com).

12: Your comments about Microsoft flirting with Linux border the ridiculous. What do you think would happen if/when Microsoft embeds Linux in their products? What system would run Linux software better? A Microsoft operating system with embedded Linux, or Linux? You might want to compare this with running Windows software on Unix systems (which is possible by using products like WABI, or toolkits like WINE). Remember, when IBM called OS/2 `a better Windows than Windows'? What did you think when they said that? Did you try it? Now, Microsoft would come along and call their Windows 2001 `a better Linux than Linux'. What would you think when they say that? Would you try it? Even more important, what would you write about it?

13: My final comment, number thirteen. About your final comments. Why do you insist that people have to want to use `Microsoft Linux' to make it a viable proposition? I can very well do without Microsoft, and so can a lot of other people. This has nothing to do with ideology, but everything with stability, choice, and performance. I get more work done in less time using non-Microsoft products, and time (as you should know) is money, especially for the people who pay me to do my work. And why do you think the future and viability of Linux is dependent on the future of RedHat? If RedHat disappears of the face of the earth, there is still SusE (rather popular here in Europe), TurboLinux (rather popular in the Far East), Debian (rather popular amongst developers anywhere and everywhere), Slackware (with a dedicated crowd of followers), Caldera (rather popular in a lot of businesses), etc. Should I go on?

I won't. Linux has the marks of becoming an important player in a lot of markets, with or without RedHat. You may be right (or you may be wrong) when you say an investment in RedHat is not the best way to make money. But you are dead wrong in your reasoning against RedHat in particular or Linux in general. The IT market is not dependent on Microsoft, it can survive without them. So can Linux. Unix is not dead, and it does not seem to be dying either. There is a lot of money to be made in all thing Unix, and Linux is one of those things.

Linus did not start Linux to `kill Microsoft', and most Linux users use Linux because it fits their needs in a way that Microsoft Windows can not. If Microsoft embeds Linux within their own stuff, that's fine with me (as long as they abide to the licensing terms). Since Linux withoug any Microsoft-extensions fits my needs, I do not see what I would gain from such a development, so I will refrain from using `Microsoft Linux'. If they do produce some useful extension (and release it under the GPL) I will use it. If they embrace and extend Linux in the way they embraced and extended other `standards' I will not use their extensions, because I do not want to be tied to a single vendor. Such ties cost money, as experience has taught me. And I;ve got better things to do with my (or rather my employers) money than give it to some company because I am locked in their embrace.

My parting comment? Please do some more research the next time, or ask a knowledgeable person to proof-read your column. It may `only be a column', but a lot of people tend to trust the media a little too much for their own good. As you probably know...

With kind regards,

Frank de Lange

/* Former editor in chief, Unix Info magazine
* now full-time developer... mostly Unix, some Windows
* speaking for himself, not his employer
*/

Dandy writes "In this article Robin Miller, one of those rare non-clueless journalists, lets everyone know that it *is* possible to have a Linux computer that is perfect for the average home user who only wants something that is easy to use. Surprise, everyone! It's not really hard after all. "

Ed-Da-Man sent us an excellent article on the Linux Community. This is one aspect that seems to be neglected far to often by journalists mentioning Linux- sure, it's a great OS, but the free software community (usually!) rocks, and are willing to help folks. Anyway, it's great positive press for linux. Not the usual stuff in any case.