Slashdot Mirror

I covered Wiki in a document I wrote about an intellegent translation system last November, the organic nature is something that I beleive I have fairly well covered:

http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/cdf/

Somebody should tell Glenn A. Baker that some copright holders like that kind of copying. They have as many moral and legal rights as he does, he is very inconsiderate.

http://www.openmusicregistry.org/

http://www.fsf.org/

check out the RULE project to install Red Hat 7.2 on less capable systems.

Apple has a point here. In most places minors can not enter into legally binding agreements. This brings up an interesting point. What about licenses like the GPL, the Artistic License, or the Apache License, to name a few. If a minor releases software under one of these licenses, do the licenses apply or are they invalid since the minor can't enter into a legal agreement? How does the law treat a minor's ability to control how their work is treated?

The RULE project http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/rule/ is working on an installer to enable a Red Hat install with less RAM. Currently works with 12 Mb, target is 8 Mb.

Let me rephrase: Stallman's main goal is to challenge software companies by forcing software to become freely available to the masses, thereby destablizing or destroying the current captialistic model in place around software. I think this statement is a little less ambigious, as he doesn't want to hurt companies that make chairs or other such objects. And I have added what I believe to be his main objective.

Stallman's beliefs are in contrast to how many software companies operate. In fact, I believe the GPL to be the most polar opposite license to the closed source model being used by Microsoft and other companies. And these companies have been doing well as it is a solid business model. So they must be doing something right.

Stallman's take on software is as equally valid. It just so happens that in his belief he wants software to be open and made available to the public. Which is the opposite of let's see Microsoft's model. And that is fine and dandy. A little competition is not bad.

Competition can be viewed as one company trying to hurting another company. But that's how things are done. A person comes up with a good idea and tries to market it and make money from it. Then another person tries to tap into that market share by making an improvement, offering a better service and/or a lower price. In this case, the other person is Stallman and the software is being giving away. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But it's competition. This is capitalism. It will be determined by competition on the free market. Stallman is hurting companies as much as openning up an Olive Garden near a TGI Fridays hurts the other.

From reading some of the material from the FSF, there are a couple of examples of how the current system about software is has socialist tendencies. While I do understand your argument that he is trying to advance the cause of socialism, I would like to clarify from what I have read, he is trying to advance the cause of socialism in software. But because he has these beliefs does not mean he is advancing the cause of socialism in general. I don't see him preaching about socialized health care or anything else. His arguments are mostly restricted to software.

RMS is so biased towards free software that anything that he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.

Not true.

Proprietary software is evil in his mind. Even if you give software away for free, it's evil in his mind if it's proprietary. Selling software is perfectly fine in his mind, so long as it is "free software". In practice, this makes it very hard, (and maybe impossible) to sell software, but that's not his goal, it's just a side effect.

Stallman doesn't even demand that you use the GPL. He would rather everyone use GPL, but GPL incompatible free licenses are acceptable.

Sorry Richard, but this is how some of people put bread of the table. There is nothing evil about seeking training, obtaining a skill, and then marketing that skill.

Your typical slaver was well trained as a businessman and ship's captain who simply used their skill. Illegal drug dealers are provided training and skills by their suppliers to increase their success in selling their product. Opium poppy farmers certainly have to learn how to properly cultivate their plants and work hard to bring them to market. In all of these cases people are trying to put bread on the table.

Ultimately, if society decides a product, service, or business practice is unethical, the fact that some people would lose their jobs is irrelevant. Stallman feels proprietary software in unethical. The appropriate response is to argue why it is ethical. Perhaps Stallman is wrong, but he's not wrong just because we might lose our jobs.

RMS is so biased towards free software that anything that he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.

Not true.

Proprietary software is evil in his mind. Even if you give software away for free, it's evil in his mind if it's proprietary. Selling software is perfectly fine in his mind, so long as it is "free software". In practice, this makes it very hard, (and maybe impossible) to sell software, but that's not his goal, it's just a side effect.

Stallman doesn't even demand that you use the GPL. He would rather everyone use GPL, but GPL incompatible free licenses are acceptable.

Sorry Richard, but this is how some of people put bread of the table. There is nothing evil about seeking training, obtaining a skill, and then marketing that skill.

Your typical slaver was well trained as a businessman and ship's captain who simply used their skill. Illegal drug dealers are provided training and skills by their suppliers to increase their success in selling their product. Opium poppy farmers certainly have to learn how to properly cultivate their plants and work hard to bring them to market. In all of these cases people are trying to put bread on the table.

Ultimately, if society decides a product, service, or business practice is unethical, the fact that some people would lose their jobs is irrelevant. Stallman feels proprietary software in unethical. The appropriate response is to argue why it is ethical. Perhaps Stallman is wrong, but he's not wrong just because we might lose our jobs.

If you'd like to spend some money on software, why don't you consider purchasing some software from GNU?

https://agia.fsf.org/

RMS is so biased towards free software that anything that he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.

That is a factually incorrect statement.

Please see Selling Free Software, an official FSF position document which encourages free software authors to sell software, for a counterexample.

Please retract your error.

Ack! My site's been slashdotted.

I'm the new activist at the FSF. I want to come speak at your school or for your community group, G/LUG, any group of sympathetic people. Tonight I'm speaking at Loyola University of Chicago. I'll help you get a campus group up and running. I'll provide news and ideas for your existing activist group. Time is of the essence, since the SSSCA is being pushed inexorably towards being voted on in the Senate.

When it gets back up, the website is http://digitalspeech.org; you can put yourself on the activists' mailing list, or you can just email me.

Let's get together and get our freedom back!

J

(Score: -1, incorrect, troll, flamebait.)

A) Screenshots are products of the program. They are "derived works" in the sense of Copyright law, but they are only derived in the sense that the .bmp files you produce from are derived works -- they are yours to do with as you please unless you were specificially forbidden from doing it by the license of the creator. Which doesn't apply here -- quoth the GPL:

and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).

Since the screenshot isn't of the GNOME source, it's not covered by the GPL.

B) Even if the GPL did cover the output of the program, which it doesn't, use of VNC still wouldn't be prohibited. The GPL only mandates that you release source to people whom you have given binaries, and that only if they requested it -- if you're using VNC for personal use or internal to your company, no one will be requesting the source so you're fine. If you're allowing complete strangers VNC access, then you have greater problems than possible GPL violations.

But what if your neighbor borrows your car when you're not using it? Assume, for sake of argument, that your neighbor only borrows your car when you wouldn't be using it, returns it whenever you ask for it, doesn't use any gas or other tangible good, and doesn't induce wear and tear on the car. You can still turn around and sell it at any time, with zero interference. In that case, you wouldn't be deprived of any property. The fact that your neighbor is borrowing your car has absolutely no impact on you.

That's a stupid analogy on its face, but it's a pretty good one for considering the case of a software vendor "stealing" clock cycles from your computer. No matter what's going on under the hood, you're not being directly deprived of any property. Your computer isn't magically worth less because it's running somebody else's code.

No!!! Try this one:

The other day, while I was at work a plumber visited my house to fix some pipes. While he was there, he borrowed my wife and gave her incurable sexual diseases....

I'd feel the same way if he fixed my computer by installing M$. Yes, it would be worth less because it does less for me. These companies that break your poor little Windows box so that they can send you adverts are really repulsive.

But I love them. Yes, I love the fact that all of these companies like Creative, M$ (by the EULA) and others treat their users like total crap. It shows everyone why they should be using FREE/A software. You trolls are great, you really are, thanks for taking the time to show how much you care.

Allow me to explain.

Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.

What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have! No Maurice, no Luther, no Lil' Kim. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than white faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent racists and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any person of color.

Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any black owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by an African-American? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single black person to be seen, and probably none for miles.

More racist overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'white hat' hackers. These 'white hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'black hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. White means good, black means bad. Anywhere there is black, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see black lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little Black Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious racists. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.

It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of racist commands with not so hidden symbolism.

It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised racist acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All White Klan) , 'sed' (shoot nEgroes dead), 'ln' (lynch negroes), 'rpm' (raical purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a slave home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat nubians today), 'fsck' (favored supreme Christian klan). I could go on and on about the latent racist symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.

Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden racist connotation ? Suffice it to say that the racism pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a racist operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for the Klan!

One of the few selling points of Open Source software is that it is available in many different languages. Browsing through the list I see that absolutely none are offered in Swahili, nor Ebonics. Obviously this is done to prevent black people from having access to the kernel. If it weren't for the fact that racism is so blatantly evil I would be impressed by the efforts these Open Sourcers have invested in keeping their little hobby lilly white. It even appears that they hate the Japanese, as some of these self proclaimed hackers defaced a web site with anti-Japanese slogans. Hell, these people even go all the way to Africa (South Africa mind you, better known as White Africa) and the pictures prove that they don't even get close to a black person.

Of course, presenting overwhelming evidence such as this is a bit unfair without some attempt to determine why these Open Sourcers are so racist. Much of the evidence I have collected indicates that their views are so deeply held that they are seldom questioned by the new recruits. This, coupled with the robot-like groupthink that dominates the culture allows the racist mindset to continue to permeate the ranks. Indeed, the Open Source version of a Klan rally, OSDN (known to the world as Open Source Developer's Network, known to insiders as Open Source Denies Negroes) nearly stands up and shouts its racist views on its demographics page. It doesn't mention the black man one single time. Obviously, anyone involved with Open Source doesn't need to be told that the demographic is entirely white, it is a given.

I have a sneaking suspicion as to why their beliefs are so closely held: they are all terrible athletes.

Really. Much like the tragedy at Columbine High School, where two geeks went on a rampage to get back at 'jocks', these adult geeks still bear the emotional scars inflicted upon them due to their lack of athletic ability during their teen years. As African-Americans are well known for their athletic skills, they are an obvious target for the Open Source geeks. As we all know, sports builds character, thus it follows that the lack of sports destroys character. These geeks, locked away in their rooms, munching on stale pizza and Fritos, engage in no character building activities. Further, they interact only with computers and never develop the level of social skill that allows normal people to handle relationships with persons of color.

Contrasted with the closed source, non-geeky software house Microsoft, Open Source has a long, long way to go.

Join me in my next article where I will lay bare the rampant anti-semitism in the Open Source community.

> I just like to inform you about some preliminary wip howto-draft I've
> put up at http://www.vcdimager.org/dvdv.phtml

I've successfully written a video DVD with dvdrecord (mastered on a
friend's windoze partition though, as we don't have vob/ifo generators
yet), so steps 3 and 4 are working.

ifo files will be a large problem - they're (mostly) undocumented, and
require all sorts of weird stuff (such as start sectors of vob files,
which probably can't be determined by anything running prior to mkisofs).

Do you have any code to start from yet? (I do, but it doesn't do too much
yet. Mostly analyzes existing ifo files to help figuring out their
layout.)

> I just like to inform you about some preliminary wip howto-draft I've
> put up at http://www.vcdimager.org/dvdv.phtml

I've successfully written a video DVD with dvdrecord (mastered on a
friend's windoze partition though, as we don't have vob/ifo generators
yet), so steps 3 and 4 are working.

ifo files will be a large problem - they're (mostly) undocumented, and
require all sorts of weird stuff (such as start sectors of vob files,
which probably can't be determined by anything running prior to mkisofs).

Do you have any code to start from yet? (I do, but it doesn't do too much
yet. Mostly analyzes existing ifo files to help figuring out their
layout.)

> I just like to inform you about some preliminary wip howto-draft I've
> put up at http://www.vcdimager.org/dvdv.phtml

I've successfully written a video DVD with dvdrecord (mastered on a
friend's windoze partition though, as we don't have vob/ifo generators
yet), so steps 3 and 4 are working.

ifo files will be a large problem - they're (mostly) undocumented, and
require all sorts of weird stuff (such as start sectors of vob files,
which probably can't be determined by anything running prior to mkisofs).

Do you have any code to start from yet? (I do, but it doesn't do too much
yet. Mostly analyzes existing ifo files to help figuring out their
layout.)

I've been searching via google for a while now and trying to find information on burning dvds with linux. There's cdrecord-PRO but its only for data.

It is also impossible to get any information out of the author on how to actually go about paying the $100 he wants for cdrecord-PROdvd, as I and many others who wanted to buy the product discovered. The author didn't answer any of the three separate emails (on three different occasions) I sent, nor any of the questions posted in public forums (USENET in particular) by numerous people. One guy who asked he flamed into oblivion, others he told "email me", and still others, myself included, were simply ignored.

This delayed my purchase of a Pioneer DVR-A03 DVD-RW burner by about a year. However, three days after the Free Software Foundations fork of cdrtools, entitled dvdrtoos, made its appearance I purchased a Pioneer drive (since that is what the software fork's author has) and have been burning data DVDs ever since.

The author's goal is to support the burning of video DVDs, but the software isn't there yet. However, I'm still waiting for a better CODEC was well ... the color space limitatino of DV (4:1:1) coupled with the MPEG2 artifacts of DVD make the two in combination somewhat undesirable for me. I'd rather burn a half hour of good quality video onto a DVD and be required to use a computer to watch it (hell, my computer IS my television, anyway), at better resolutions and without the ugly artifacts, than accept the compromises of both DV and DVD just so I can play it in grandma's region-coded, MPAA crippled DVD player. Far better to build her a small computer with the appropriate software on it, instead.

So here's to holding out for ogg-tarkin!

In the meantime, at least I have a place to burn my high-bitrate MPEG4 recordings of Star Trek Enterprise to (two episodes a disk and far better quality than videotape will allow, though still with enough annoying artifacts that I don't want to use it for my own work).

"The GNU Hurd is the GNU project's replacement for the Unix kernel. The Hurd is a collection of servers..."
I don't understand how it can be a "collection of servers". This is from here a page off of the Hurd link in submission.
Help.

Well said, totally agreed. Wanna support somebody, go see the FSF.

Because after all this FOR PROFIT Mandrake outift is really just a slick bundled up collection of open source software most of which comes from the FSF. Mandrake ought to be paying them anyway!

UNIX is a registered trademark of the Open Group.

UNIX is defined by them as follows:
"UNIX ® - the worldwide Single UNIX Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4, IEEE's POSIX Standards and ISO C. Through continual evolution, the Single UNIX Specification is the defacto and dejure standard definition for the UNIX system application programming interfaces.
"The majority of commercial vendors have registered UNIX® products, with most at the UNIX 95 level and newer products registering for UNIX 98."

Only products listed on their product registration pages can be branded as UNIX. GNU (GNU's not UNIX) and Linux could, together with particular hardware, become certified UNIX, but first someone would have to pay the Open Group and demonstrate standards compliance.

It would be very easy for Apple to get MacOS certified on Power Macintosh computers, but they have yet to do so according to Open Group.

Sounds like the Microsoft we know. Only M$ can make money. We can be sure what they mean by liberal is that they can comercialize anything they want and lock out the orignials. Like winsock.

No thanks. Not making money, that's a restriction most people can't live with. Comercialization is part of software freedom. I don't need Microsoft's platforms, so why would I care about Microsoft's propriatory "standards" that let me talk to it? I've got ssh, X, and ftp for talking accros reasonable platforms. For those who want the pain and suffering of chasing the M$ tail there is mono. This toy is sure to be broken without recourse as soon as convienent to M$. Will comercial interests really be so stupid as to fall for yet another M$ trick? I hope not. Tell your boss, don't let this one get shoved down on you by clueless management.

As this is the same old story, I expect the same results for those not under the clueless. There have been more Linux developers than Microsoft developers for a while now. This is not likely to change much. Microsoft thinks people just want neat toys but where people are spending their time tells a different story.

then a)it has no value, and you have nothing to lose by giving it away, say, to the FSF, OR b) you can't find the value in it, and so maybe you should let someone else have a crack at it. (Add suggestions for 'someone else' as you see fit, but, of course, my vote goes to Phil.

Taco said "I think people overrate them. Several people said that we should follow what google does. But they don't understand that we're very different then google. What keywords do we sell, and to who? It just doesn't make as much sense."

Every story could have words replaced by links e.g. IBM has just sued Sun because of GPL infringement becomes IBM has just sued SUN because of GPL infringement

next

On EU software patents - see here from the FFII Swpat Workgroup (as pointed out by the FSF). The situation could soon become worse than the US.

My guess is that Section 2a is the only thing that may help here:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

Worse, Section 3 -- which allows distribution in binary -- only requires the source to be "machine readable". Again, nothing against obfuscation. Section 1 only says you have to keep the copyright notices and references to such as well as the disclaimers in your code.

I'd like to see what the FSF has to say on this.

woof.

Source without comments is like a joke without the punchline.

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

So I guess, this is not going to work. Then again, IANAL, and I don't want to be one.

The wording is definitely ambiguous. In fact, the GPL FAQ even has this question that addresses what constitutes aggregation between a GPL'd program and a non-GPL'd program.

Essentially, noone is really sure how far the GPL extends. I think linking is pretty straight forward but there are other things that are a little sketchy. I think we are due for a GPL v3.0.

If users lose rights from the GPL being thrown out, then that could potentially be very bad. I know in a lot of corporate environments, if the GPL was thrown away and an author couldn't be contacted, a lot of work could potentially become invalid due to licensing problems.

s/2/3/. The FSF already published (a decade ago) the GPL version 2.

The FSF has posted an Affidavit of Eben Moglen on Progress Software vs. MySQL AB Preliminary Injunction Hearing. It is pretty good reading.

There is nothing to Linux except for the Kernel, so what the hell are you talking about? Linux is the kernel. The operating system is GNU, and together they are called GNU/Linux. No, no, you can't just call GNU the Linux OS, because it runs on top of other kernels, too, like Mach. It is the fault of the distro companies that folks don't know this. It would be nice if RedHat, Caldera and JoBobDistroCo all put prominent literature in their distros and on their web pages pointing to the FSF, but the companies, being capitalist entitities, are to a larger extent in it for the dough and thus fail to amplify the communist spirit of open source.

You should read Moglen's stuff at http://www.fsf.org/press/2002-02-26-MySQL.html (plus the links there). GPL violation is essentially copyright violation. No portion of the GPL puts your work in danger of becoming public domain by accident.

Reading the FSF Affitdavit addressed some of my concerns. In particular, #25:

FSF's policy with respect to GPL violations is to secure compliance, not damages. When a party has violated GPL, and the violation is called to our attention (which happens on the average some dozens of times each year), we inform the party in violation of its responsibilities, and advise it on the steps necessary to come into compliance. It is our practice that once a party has taken steps to comply, and has entered into confidence-building measures to ensure that future non-compliance will be avoided wherever possible, and rapidly discovered and remedied where inadvertently reproduced, distribution rights under GPL 4 are restored on a cooperative non-judicial basis. In this fashion, I have secured compliance with the license in dozens of cases over the past decade, and have never had to resort to judicial measures of mandatory enforcement. Without the leverage provided by 4, however, parties would resort to repetitive partial compliance, ``capable of repetition but evading review,'' in language the Supreme Court has applied to a different sort of situation, substantially if not overwhelmingly complicating the task of securing reliable compliance with the license.

In this case, since the FSF does not own copyright to MySQL, their usual policy doesn't apply. I still think what MySQL AB is doing is wrong, and is abusing the spirit of GPL, however. Just as importantly, using such a convoluted case to test the GPL in court for the first time seriously jeopardizes the license. (If it is not upheld in this case because of the strange circumstances, where will that leave FSF in enforcing GPL in other, more clear cut instances?)

FSF has a press release and the affidavit we filed available on our website.

FSF has a press release and the affidavit we filed available on our website.

• Bruce Perens, Free Software Evangelist.
• Larry Rosen, Attorney, Executive Director: Open Source Initiative
• Eben Moglen, General Counsel, Free Software Foundation.

• We don't get everything we want, but we've done pretty well.

  Bruce

and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)

Freedom #3; freedom to redistribute with modifications. See, for example, the SISSL, which is accepted by OSI but does not allow one to redistribute changes that aren't compatible with the standards setting body. [See section 3.1.] Or the revocation clause in the APSL, which is one of the three reasons the APSL isn't free.

All of that said... the point you're trying to make, Russ, is a sound one- the basic OSI philosophy is not incompatible with that of the FSF. But the FSF's philosophy is a superset of the OSI's- it isn't just 'see the source', which the OSI cares about, it also includes 'have freedom to use the source once you've seen it'- which the OSI doesn't care about, and which is why RMS dislikes them so much.

[up front: I'm a Ximian employee; I don't think that makes any difference to this point but I don't want to be accused of hiding it in an article about Miguel.]

Open source rejects his ideals of freedom.

Uh, no. I see you have bought into Stallman's propaganda. Please tell me what part of the Open Source Definition doesn't meet the Free Software Definition.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a
Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. Since these humble
beginnings, a multi-million dollar
industry has sprung up to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but
until recently Linux has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the
recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Linux is
now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft Windows. While there
are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solaris operating system,
none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux.

Linux Mandrake is just the
latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous
versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware,
Storm and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such
as 98, ME or NT preferred by Microsoft, the crazy
names of each Linux release hint at its renegade nature.

My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image" from
the Linux web site. But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's
perfectly legal! Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely
redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free
availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among
cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the
documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for me
in the "required configuration" section of the manual.
I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium
processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a
whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although the advocates of Linux self-righteously
boast the efficiency of their chosen operating system and deride the
"bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are
blatantly incorrect. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95,
it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive,
computer hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system?
Of course not.

Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my many
complaints. A brief perusal of the
features of Linux Mandrake reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many
crucial productivity applications. For example, why isn't the industry
standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the
best efforts of the experts at the Internet
Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer
standard, the creators of Linux seem to think that they know better. By
refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining
its own credibility.

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software
is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that
your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not
work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer for recreational
purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the most popular games
are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of software is freely
available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not
bear comparison to their commercial counterparts.

Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by
the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are
commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for
Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular
ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux,
you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the
Internet.

The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux
Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too
much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Linux
would have addressed these problems? The real question that the
prospective Linux user must ask himself is, "Why bother?" After all,
Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need
to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality.

Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Windows XP will
be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that those
Adequacy readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system
patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly
wasting their time, effort and money on Linux.

So? The GNU project does not have a mission statement that includes "produce major breakthrough every couple of years". The FSF's top level page has a couple of links that are essential when trying to evaluate its success: why we exist (as relevant as ever), what we provide and where we are going.

But of course, that's just my opinion, so flame me.

I rarely flame people for their opinions. I occasionally flame people who clearly haven't bothered to try to understand what they're talking about and who don't let facts get in the way of their opinions. You seem to fit that category nicely. In particular, your comment "I think we need a lot more non-GNU involvment for gcc (gcc-foundation?) to get some fresh blood into this project. And if RMS doesn't allow that, we need a fork." shows you to have little understanding of gcc's development process. Gcc's development process was broken open in 1999 (by the FSF effectively admitting the failure of its cathedral-style development model of gcc 2.8.x and embracing the bazaar-style development model of the EGCS fork) and has an effective foundation (in the form of the GCC steering committee), as anyone who has read the GCC FAQ or is familiar with gcc's history knows.

So? The GNU project does not have a mission statement that includes "produce major breakthrough every couple of years". The FSF's top level page has a couple of links that are essential when trying to evaluate its success: why we exist (as relevant as ever), what we provide and where we are going.

But of course, that's just my opinion, so flame me.

I rarely flame people for their opinions. I occasionally flame people who clearly haven't bothered to try to understand what they're talking about and who don't let facts get in the way of their opinions. You seem to fit that category nicely. In particular, your comment "I think we need a lot more non-GNU involvment for gcc (gcc-foundation?) to get some fresh blood into this project. And if RMS doesn't allow that, we need a fork." shows you to have little understanding of gcc's development process. Gcc's development process was broken open in 1999 (by the FSF effectively admitting the failure of its cathedral-style development model of gcc 2.8.x and embracing the bazaar-style development model of the EGCS fork) and has an effective foundation (in the form of the GCC steering committee), as anyone who has read the GCC FAQ or is familiar with gcc's history knows.

So? The GNU project does not have a mission statement that includes "produce major breakthrough every couple of years". The FSF's top level page has a couple of links that are essential when trying to evaluate its success: why we exist (as relevant as ever), what we provide and where we are going.

But of course, that's just my opinion, so flame me.

I rarely flame people for their opinions. I occasionally flame people who clearly haven't bothered to try to understand what they're talking about and who don't let facts get in the way of their opinions. You seem to fit that category nicely. In particular, your comment "I think we need a lot more non-GNU involvment for gcc (gcc-foundation?) to get some fresh blood into this project. And if RMS doesn't allow that, we need a fork." shows you to have little understanding of gcc's development process. Gcc's development process was broken open in 1999 (by the FSF effectively admitting the failure of its cathedral-style development model of gcc 2.8.x and embracing the bazaar-style development model of the EGCS fork) and has an effective foundation (in the form of the GCC steering committee), as anyone who has read the GCC FAQ or is familiar with gcc's history knows.

There is lots of confusion in this thread, but yerricde (parent) has got it right. Also check out how the FSF explains the problem.

No, that's what the GNU Free Documentation License is for.

That's why they use the words software and program in the GPL

No, that's what the GNU Free Documentation License is for.

That's why they use the words software and program in the GPL

Check out this page. It links to the image in several different formats, including a lossless PNG, and a high-quality JPEG ("No gifs due to patent problems"). Both of those are ~580k, but the crappy JPEG is only 36k - it's probably better if Slashdot doesn't link to huge images.

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a
Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. Since these humble
beginnings, a multi-million dollar
industry has sprung up to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but
until recently Linux has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the
recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Linux is
now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft Windows. While there
are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solaris operating system,
none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux.

Linux Mandrake is just the
latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous
versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware,
Storm and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such
as 98, ME or NT preferred by Microsoft, the crazy
names of each Linux release hint at its renegade nature.

My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image" from
the Linux web site. But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's
perfectly legal! Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely
redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free
availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among
cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the
documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for me
in the "required configuration" section of the manual.
I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium
processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a
whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although the advocates of Linux self-righteously
boast the efficiency of their chosen operating system and deride the
"bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are
blatantly incorrect. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95,
it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive,
computer hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system?
Of course not.

Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my many
complaints. A brief perusal of the
features of Linux Mandrake reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many
crucial productivity applications. For example, why isn't the industry
standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the
best efforts of the experts at the Internet
Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer
standard, the creators of Linux seem to think that they know better. By
refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining
its own credibility.

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software
is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that
your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not
work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer for recreational
purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the most popular games
are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of software is freely
available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not
bear comparison to their commercial counterparts.

Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by
the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are
commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for
Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular
ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux,
you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the
Internet.

The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux
Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too
much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Linux
would have addressed these problems? The real question that the
prospective Linux user must ask himself is, "Why bother?" After all,
Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need
to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality.

Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Windows XP will
be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that those
Adequacy readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system
patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly
wasting their time, effort and money on Linux.

• Bloat. MS Office defies the basic principles of UNIX. It will probably need to run as root and make our systems unstable. Do we need this?
• No freedom. This is a step in the wrong direction for those of us who prefer to use 'cvs update' instead of service packs to update our systems.
• Monopoly leveraging. Microsoft will undoubtedly engineer their .Net "features" into new versions of Office. Don't be surprised if you, as a UNIX user, will need a Passport account just to run Word.
• Monopoly extension. Why would anyone work on improving Koffice, StarOffice, or LaTeX if MS Office exists on the UNIX platform? The competitors would start out at a huge disadvantage and know there's no place in the market for them.

• User friendliness. MS Office provides a seamless transition for lusers who have grown up with Windows and don't know anything else.
• World domination. Anything that helps us replace inferior desktop OSs is a good thing, evolution-wise and principle-wise.
• Hackability. UNIX is a far superior platform for hackers because of the wide array of debugging tools available, so it will make reverse engineers' jobs easier.

-Uncle

http://www.fsf.org/help/donate.html

Yes, I do hear them begging.