Slashdot Mirror

Are all Linux hippies sexually attracted to animals?

No one wanted to listen to him sing this

-ted

Richard Stallman explains very clearly what the purpose of the GPL is on the FSF website, notes clearly what freedoms are required to make a license a "free software" license, and how the GPL fills these freedoms.

Have you read his "very clear" explanations? They're the worst kind of collectivist propaganda. I implore everybody lurking on this thread to read Stallman's "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" (here) and behold his rhetorical mumbo-jumbo. I particularly like the way he sets up the SPA as a straw-man and compares them to the USSR. Really classy, Rich.

The GPL allows anyone to create and license derivative works, just like the BSD license does. The set of restrictions to such redistribution is slightly different (BSD license requires attribution, GPL requires same license terms) but neither denies anyone the right to modify, distribute, or sell derivatives for however much money you want.

Wrong twice. First, the GPL expressly prohibits the licensing of derivative works under less restrictive terms than the GPL itself. Specifically, it says, "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." In other words, works derived from GPL-licensed works are automatically covered under the GPL. That's one.

Two: you cannot sell any works derived from software licensed under the GPL. It's prohibited by the license. The GPL says, "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... cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." In other words, if you create and distribute a work derived from a GPL-licensed work, you must give it away to everybody.

The BSD license is not truly free; it does not allow anyone to redistribute or modify without attribution. The only truly free license is no license at all, which is known as "Public Domain."

Okay, I'll go along with that. So in the hierarchy of freedom, we have public domain (completely unrestricted), the BSD and similar licenses (restricted only in attribution), and then the GPL (restricted in many ways). Tell me again how a license that is demonstrably more restrictive that two others (if you could PD as a license for sake of discussion) is somehow "free?"

I can think of only one thing you can't do with the GPL (redistribute without GPL'ed source).

You might want to consider actually reading the GPL then. The list of musts and must nots numbers no fewer than 10 by a cursory count.

As is calling BSD-licensed software "free," by your definition.

I'll even accept that. But of all software that is not in the public domain-- that is, software that is licensed at all-- that which carries the BSD license is freest by far.

Isn't it nice that RMS and the FSF give very clear, concise definitions of such terms, so we don't have to sit here and fight about it?

Except for the fact that they are hijacking the word "free" in so doing. Let's say I released some software that I called "free." On my web site I gave a clear and concise definition of "free" that read, "You can use this software for anything you want at all, without restrictions. If you accept this license, you agree to give me the liver and sweetbreads of your firstborn." Would this be deceptive? Would this be fraudulent? Would it be reprehensible?

Playing semantic games with a word that has already been clearly and unambiguously defined by the FSF in order to push your own (badly-considered) propaganda is deceptive.

Who are you accusing? Are you saying that I am playing word games in order to push my own propaganda? Then what, pray tell, is the FSF doing??

I agree that copyrighted material shouldn't be freely distributed from an ethical standpoint.

If that's the way we're talking, then the RIAA have already won. There are plenty of legitimate circumstances to distribute a lot copyrighted material -- and that's not even getting into fair use yet. Consider examples in software, or other types of media.

It's not an issue of copyright per se, it's an issue of what's permitted by the license.

theres gotta be a way to call for the download of a single .jpg x1000 without it actually caching on my machine. though a jpg would only be 50K I am looking at it along the lines 50Megs but if I get some program that could do that on 10 machines at work have them eat up 500megs of bandwidth a hour would equal what 12gigs a day.

You need two programs to do that, bash and wget. You can write one (long) line to do just that:

shell$ for i in `seq 1 1000`; do wget --user-agent='Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)' --cache=off --referer=http://www.x10.com/products/ http://www.x10.com/images9/abkc_sidecam.jpg; rm -v abkc_sidecam.jpg; done [enter]

or you could even run something million times more effective, like this:

shell$ for i in `seq 1 1000`; do wget --user-agent='Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)' --cache=off --mirror -e robots=off http://www.x10.com/products/; rm -rfv *x10.com; done [enter]

Technically it's trivial, you can use Bash/wget, you can use Perl/LWP, etc. But the question is: wouldn't it be more evil than the popups themselves?

theres gotta be a way to call for the download of a single .jpg x1000 without it actually caching on my machine. though a jpg would only be 50K I am looking at it along the lines 50Megs but if I get some program that could do that on 10 machines at work have them eat up 500megs of bandwidth a hour would equal what 12gigs a day.

You need two programs to do that, bash and wget. You can write one (long) line to do just that:

shell$ for i in `seq 1 1000`; do wget --user-agent='Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)' --cache=off --referer=http://www.x10.com/products/ http://www.x10.com/images9/abkc_sidecam.jpg; rm -v abkc_sidecam.jpg; done [enter]

or you could even run something million times more effective, like this:

shell$ for i in `seq 1 1000`; do wget --user-agent='Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)' --cache=off --mirror -e robots=off http://www.x10.com/products/; rm -rfv *x10.com; done [enter]

Technically it's trivial, you can use Bash/wget, you can use Perl/LWP, etc. But the question is: wouldn't it be more evil than the popups themselves?

QT is not free if you want to do commercial applications.

Trolltech's Qt is free for use in commercial free software such as Red Hat's distribution of KDE, or any other boxed distribution of a GPL'd application.

try the edditor 'ed', i've heard good things about it.

ED is the standard text editor!

You call pro-GPL sentiment "Communist" licensing views?

That sounds like an awfully "extremist" attitude to me.

(Hint: IP protections do not exist in nature. The GPL [and esp. BSD license] is as lassiez-faire as they come.)

Perhaps you should read it before resuming your trolling.

The hardware is $1300, so the lifeless geeks are holding back. Hardware is still $1300,

Actually, the commentary on this GNU page is for all practical purposes irrelevant since it only properly addresses a version of the licence which has been superceeded. Apple made some significant changes to APSL to specifically address the reservations the open souce community had about their first attempt at an open source licence. I believe the authors of this comment need to rewrite it make it relevant to the current version of APSL, and if they don't, I suggest people stop referring to this out-dated material.

the above post is complete FUD. The analysis offered on the gnu site is completely up-to-date. Here is the proof which is completely verifiable, as opposed to bald assertions which turn out to be untrue in the parent comment.

Specifically :
- latest version of the apsl is 1.2,
according to apple's own site here,
released on jan 4, 2001

- gnu apsl anlysis page last updated 2002/10/15
(shown at bottom of page)
which specifically addresses remaining problems
with apsl 1.2 (the latest release)
and while it still provides comment
on the initial problems with the 1.0 release,
this comment is clearly referenced
as referring to an older release
for which later releases corrected
only some of the problems
(and probably the gnu analysis page played a large
role in having these problems fixed).

so, in summary, please stop posting fud,
and moderators please check a posters assertions
before modding him or her up

Well, it does beat teh hell out of RMS Singing, anyway...

:-)

As I understand, Java manages all of the garbage collection by itself. So using Java with a native compiler (instead of the VM crap) like GCJ would be a clever solution.

About your comment regarding strcat, sprintf, etc., I couldn't be more agree with you. I *hate* the way C does string handling (it's awful for God's sake). What are those safe versions you are refering to?

clarifications anyone?
by proclus on Wednesday December 18, @07:05PM EST

Sorry, I just couldn't let the story to out this way, because truth is important to me.

All machines that are currently supported will continue to be supported in their current configurations, so we are not pulling out the rug as it were. The situation could be better than this, but the ball is now in Apple's court. I will say that Apple has been moving in the right direction with respect to these issues over the past few years. If projects like ours can stay engaged with them, there may be a chance. It is not easy, and may be overly optimistic, but there it is. I'd like to give some time for Apple to respond.

The main source for the Apple/DMCA story is at the following link, although it has been covered extensively on the web as an 'Apple DMCA' googlesearch will reveal.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955805.html

Based on my experience with the Adobe boycott and other anti-DMCA activism, I consider Declan as a trusted source. Here are some good stories about the impact of the DMCA in general and on Apple users.

http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-656.html# lnk3
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06901

As for the APSL, this has been a long standing issue with the Distribution, which dates back to the founding.

http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/12/01/20282 54&mode=thread

Darwin is not free software, because the APSL is not consistent with the free software definition. For more information, check GNU Project.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

You may know Yves@gnu-darwin.org, who is a OSXFaq.com editorial contributor. His most recent installment is highly germain.

http://www.osxfaq.com/Editorial/open/index4.ws

Until Darwin is freed, activists such as myself will be leading users away from it instead of toward it. This antagonism towards Apple in the free software community has been aggravated by the DMCA fiasco. For example, Slashdot coverage of Apple has soured considerably since that time. We added the caveat to our Darwin distribution CD's soon after that (see grey box).

http://www.gnu-darwin.org/order.shtml

Clearly it is in Apple's best interest to repudiate the DMCA, to remove the onerous anti-privacy clause from the APSL, and to meet the standards of GNU Project, so that users can have a truly free OS, and so that activists can support Darwin instead of undermining it.

The message for users is to educate yourself about software freedom. In this world of economic contraction, the DMCA, RIAA, and the patriot act, that might take some effort, but it will be worthwhile in the event that free software becomes more difficult to maintain. Here is the starting point.

http://www.gnu.org

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

clarifications anyone?
by proclus on Wednesday December 18, @07:05PM EST

Sorry, I just couldn't let the story to out this way, because truth is important to me.

All machines that are currently supported will continue to be supported in their current configurations, so we are not pulling out the rug as it were. The situation could be better than this, but the ball is now in Apple's court. I will say that Apple has been moving in the right direction with respect to these issues over the past few years. If projects like ours can stay engaged with them, there may be a chance. It is not easy, and may be overly optimistic, but there it is. I'd like to give some time for Apple to respond.

The main source for the Apple/DMCA story is at the following link, although it has been covered extensively on the web as an 'Apple DMCA' googlesearch will reveal.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955805.html

Based on my experience with the Adobe boycott and other anti-DMCA activism, I consider Declan as a trusted source. Here are some good stories about the impact of the DMCA in general and on Apple users.

http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-656.html# lnk3
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06901

As for the APSL, this has been a long standing issue with the Distribution, which dates back to the founding.

http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/12/01/20282 54&mode=thread

Darwin is not free software, because the APSL is not consistent with the free software definition. For more information, check GNU Project.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

You may know Yves@gnu-darwin.org, who is a OSXFaq.com editorial contributor. His most recent installment is highly germain.

http://www.osxfaq.com/Editorial/open/index4.ws

Until Darwin is freed, activists such as myself will be leading users away from it instead of toward it. This antagonism towards Apple in the free software community has been aggravated by the DMCA fiasco. For example, Slashdot coverage of Apple has soured considerably since that time. We added the caveat to our Darwin distribution CD's soon after that (see grey box).

http://www.gnu-darwin.org/order.shtml

Clearly it is in Apple's best interest to repudiate the DMCA, to remove the onerous anti-privacy clause from the APSL, and to meet the standards of GNU Project, so that users can have a truly free OS, and so that activists can support Darwin instead of undermining it.

The message for users is to educate yourself about software freedom. In this world of economic contraction, the DMCA, RIAA, and the patriot act, that might take some effort, but it will be worthwhile in the event that free software becomes more difficult to maintain. Here is the starting point.

http://www.gnu.org

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

First, Apple continues the wall-of-silence with respect to their repugnant DMCA-based legal action, and there is no reason whatsoever for us to think that they will not undertake similar action in the future. It is regrettable that the DMCA was Apple-sponsored legislation, and it is now time for them to disavow it and promise never to employ it.

Companies don't do open source because of their love of freedom or anything. They do it because it saves them money. Many eyes ... you know it. And we have a right to ask for something in return.

Coming back to the license issue: It's not about Apple not releasing under the GPL. The point is that the APSL is not an acceptable free software license. . Where did everyone get the idea from that they're asking for Apple to adopt the GPL???

Look at it in another way. How do you feel about M$ taking all the networking layer code from BSD? OSS brings a lot of benefits to companies, but they also have some responsibilities if they want to have a useful symbiosis with the free software community. And it is our duty to remind them of this responsibility.

For those who were wondering what the specific problems the GNU folks have with the APSL are, the GNU site lists their problems with the Apple License

I think it's great to see more Free Software being released. I welcome more Free Software programmers and their Free Software projects. But I think the importance of freedom is being ignored to chase what's popular and convenient here and now. I also see some potential for mistaking the advances of a freedom-minded movement for the advances of a freedom-dismissing movement.

From the press release: "While Linux is well known as an operating system for personal computers and servers, today it is also finding applications in the area of digital home devices."

Linux is not an operating system, it is and has been a kernal. The Linux kernal is an important portion of a complete GNU/Linux operating system but it is just a portion (no matter how many people say otherwise) and it's not fair to ignore GNU. There are compelling reasons to take the time to mention GNU when you are talking about a complete operating system.

The great stuff we all appreciate in GNU came from a movement that pays a lot of attention to software freedom. The Open Source movement (which curtly dismisses the importance of software freedom) came over a decade later, well after the GNU GPL had been published and in wide use; well after the pragmatic idealism of the Free Software community had published a lot of Free Software. So please don't misattribute the gains of freedom (both practical and ethical) to the wrong movement.

I think it's great to see more Free Software being released. I welcome more Free Software programmers and their Free Software projects. But I think the importance of freedom is being ignored to chase what's popular and convenient here and now. I also see some potential for mistaking the advances of a freedom-minded movement for the advances of a freedom-dismissing movement.

From the press release: "While Linux is well known as an operating system for personal computers and servers, today it is also finding applications in the area of digital home devices."

Linux is not an operating system, it is and has been a kernal. The Linux kernal is an important portion of a complete GNU/Linux operating system but it is just a portion (no matter how many people say otherwise) and it's not fair to ignore GNU. There are compelling reasons to take the time to mention GNU when you are talking about a complete operating system.

The great stuff we all appreciate in GNU came from a movement that pays a lot of attention to software freedom. The Open Source movement (which curtly dismisses the importance of software freedom) came over a decade later, well after the GNU GPL had been published and in wide use; well after the pragmatic idealism of the Free Software community had published a lot of Free Software. So please don't misattribute the gains of freedom (both practical and ethical) to the wrong movement.

What, but I thought that Slashcode is GPLd?

Yes, this is true, however that is not what I am talking about. As an aside, it is worth mentioning that when having GPLd Slashcode, Taco is determined to get as much out of it as possible; rather than simply making the code available for all to use and modify for their own gains, Taco uses this solely to get free labour. Anyone who has submitted a valid bug report and received the Taco Response(tm) of "Well code up a patch and we'll include, else fuck off." will know what I mean here.

Well then, what do you mean?

As you may be aware, Slashdot recently included a set of fields that you can fill in with your instant messaging details.

Sounds neat - people can contact me in realtime! I still don't see the GNU tie-in...

Yes, doesn't it? However look again at the list:

• AOL IM
• ICQ UIN
• Yahoo! ID
• Jabber

Sounds like an oversight to me. The OSS doesn't ban oversights.

Oh, to be young and naive. Such a bug report was submitted by Super Trooper, a diligent Slashdot reader. The text of the bug and Taco's response are included:

Submitted By:
Jon Anderson (s_trooper)
Users Status:
Closed
Summary:

Missing MSN Messenger entry in user info
Slashdot recently added fields for AOL, Jabber, Yahoo!
and ICQ instant messenger screen names to the User Info
preferences page. However, an entry for MSN Messenger
is conspicuously missing. I can only assume this was an
accidental oversight on the developers' part.

Date: 2002-12-16 06:59
Sender: cmdrtaco
Logged In: YES
user_id=288856

not a bugl

Cut to the chase. So Taco is a Microsoft hating fuckwit who probably phoned up the few friends he has to boast about how his omission of MSNIM will singlehandedly bring down Micro$$$oft. Will you please tell me how this means Taco goes against the spirit of the OSS movement?

OK, you win. For those of you who have looked at the definition of open source software will be interested to look at clause 5: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Now, this is one of the single most sensible, rational parts of the open source and free software philosophies. Were this clause not there, it would be a slippery slope to begin by excluding oppressive regimes, then maybe unethical companies, then maybe companies who make lots of money already...

Hmm. I see what you're getting at.

Yes, exactly. The point is, the overarching principles of free software sensibly include everyone. This makes perfect sense, and guarantees true freedom of software. By deliberately and arguably even actively not supporting MSNIM, Taco has demonstrated that he cares more about childish ya-boo-sucks posturing than he does about the freedom of software; the freedom of choice. I have no choice; Taco has effectively said that I must use a different messaging system if I want to use this software's feature. Taco has removed my freedom of choice.

I think it is fair to say that RMS, despite his hatred of proprietary protocols, would find this abhorrent; one of the biggest sites in support of open source / free software is deliberately restricting the freedom of its users.

Well what can we do about it?

Sadly, nothing. Taco is a stubborn little child. He will get pleasure every day 'knowing' that his actions have caused serious damage to a multinational multi-billion dollar turnover company.

Thank's for taking the moral high ground, Mr Malda.

What, but I thought that Slashcode is GPLd?

Yes, this is true, however that is not what I am talking about. As an aside, it is worth mentioning that when having GPLd Slashcode, Taco is determined to get as much out of it as possible; rather than simply making the code available for all to use and modify for their own gains, Taco uses this solely to get free labour. Anyone who has submitted a valid bug report and received the Taco Response(tm) of "Well code up a patch and we'll include, else fuck off." will know what I mean here.

Well then, what do you mean?

As you may be aware, Slashdot recently included a set of fields that you can fill in with your instant messaging details.

Sounds neat - people can contact me in realtime! I still don't see the GNU tie-in...

Yes, doesn't it? However look again at the list:

• AOL IM
• ICQ UIN
• Yahoo! ID
• Jabber

Sounds like an oversight to me. The OSS doesn't ban oversights.

Oh, to be young and naive. Such a bug report was submitted by Super Trooper, a diligent Slashdot reader. The text of the bug and Taco's response are included:

Submitted By:
Jon Anderson (s_trooper)
Users Status:
Closed
Summary:

Missing MSN Messenger entry in user info
Slashdot recently added fields for AOL, Jabber, Yahoo!
and ICQ instant messenger screen names to the User Info
preferences page. However, an entry for MSN Messenger
is conspicuously missing. I can only assume this was an
accidental oversight on the developers' part.

Date: 2002-12-16 06:59
Sender: cmdrtaco
Logged In: YES
user_id=288856

not a bugl

Cut to the chase. So Taco is a Microsoft hating fuckwit who probably phoned up the few friends he has to boast about how his omission of MSNIM will singlehandedly bring down Micro$$$oft. Will you please tell me how this means Taco goes against the spirit of the OSS movement?

OK, you win. For those of you who have looked at the definition of open source software will be interested to look at clause 5: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Now, this is one of the single most sensible, rational parts of the open source and free software philosophies. Were this clause not there, it would be a slippery slope to begin by excluding oppressive regimes, then maybe unethical companies, then maybe companies who make lots of money already...

Hmm. I see what you're getting at.

Yes, exactly. The point is, the overarching principles of free software sensibly include everyone. This makes perfect sense, and guarantees true freedom of software. By deliberately and arguably even actively not supporting MSNIM, Taco has demonstrated that he cares more about childish ya-boo-sucks posturing than he does about the freedom of software; the freedom of choice. I have no choice; Taco has effectively said that I must use a different messaging system if I want to use this software's feature. Taco has removed my freedom of choice.

I think it is fair to say that RMS, despite his hatred of proprietary protocols, would find this abhorrent; one of the biggest sites in support of open source / free software is deliberately restricting the freedom of its users.

Well what can we do about it?

Sadly, nothing. Taco is a stubborn little child. He will get pleasure every day 'knowing' that his actions have caused serious damage to a multinational multi-billion dollar turnover company.

Thank's for taking the moral high ground, Mr Malda.

STALLMAN: I have a suggestion. If I were to suggest totally boycotting movies, I think people would ignore that suggestion.
They might consider it too radical. So I would like to make a slightly different suggestion which comes to almost the same thing
in the end, and that is, don't go to a movie unless you have some substantial reason to think it's good. Now this will lead in
practice to almost the same result as a total boycott of Hollywood movies. In extension, it's almost the same but, in intention, it's
very different. Now I've noticed that many people go to movies for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they think the
movies are good. So if you change that, if you only go to a movie when you have some substantial reason to think it's good,
you'll take away a lot of their money.

There are two meanings of the word "free" at work.

There is free (as in beer), which you do not have to pay for.

There is Free (as in speech), which does not restrict what you can do with it.

Obviously there can be no universal freedom. There is a saying "Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose". You are not (or should not) be free to yell "Fire" in a crowded enclosed space. Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation and the GPL is software that you are free to modify, and distribute as you wish, for any payment you wish. You cannot place restrictions on the software as to what can be done with it after you have given it to someone.

You get something for free (as in beer). If you modify it and distribute it, you must give everyone the same freedoms that you were given. To me it seems a small price to pay for getting the original software for free.

I'm not a GPL fanatic, but I like some of the ideas behind it. In todays software economy, lots of money is made by selling the right to use software, something you can't do with Free (as in speech) software. But many companies spend a lot of money on custom software that is never traded on the open market, either by developing in house or contracting out the work. In these cases companies could save a lot of money by adapting an existing product to their needs, rather then writing everything from scratch.

I wandered a bit, but this shoudl serve as a quick intro into free and Free software.

The GPL is far more enforceable than the click-through licenses, because rather than forbidding you to do something you are normally allowed to, it allows you to do something you are normally forbidden to do. So, if you are distributing GPLed software without agreeing to and obeying the GPL, then you are violating copyright law, as nothing besides the GPL is giving you the right to distribute that software.

So far, the GPL has never been tested in court, because every single violator backed down. No one has been foolish enough to try. Enforcing the GNU GPL by Eben Moglen, the general counsel of the FSF describes in detail what has been done to enforce it.

A lot of people are complaining that the new binary module licensing changes are too restrictive, and reduce people's freedom when writing drivers (and I won't argue with that). Something else to think about, though, is whether the new changes are really the best thing to do from a purely GPL standpoint, where the end goal is to have as much software as possibly be free. As the GNU project points out in their discussions on licenses, it is sometimes a better idea to allow binary software. There are other operating systems than Linux (I hear there's a company in Redmond that makes one that's quite popular). If Linux discourages or forbids binary only drivers, the driver manufacturers won't make drivers for Linux (since, in many cases, they are bound by licenses that won't allow them to release open source drivers). If Linux doesn't have hardware support, then fewer people will be willing to use it, and thus fewer software companies will release Linux versions of their software. So far, Linux hardware support has been very good, but slow. New devices are often poorly supported. However, commercial drivers (binary and open source) have been starting to gain momentum, new hardware is more likely to have support, often from the manufacturers of the hardware themselves. I hope that the new 2.6 kernel won't stall that advancement, and seriously slow widespread adoption of Linux as a viable OS.

A lot of people are complaining that the new binary module licensing changes are too restrictive, and reduce people's freedom when writing drivers (and I won't argue with that). Something else to think about, though, is whether the new changes are really the best thing to do from a purely GPL standpoint, where the end goal is to have as much software as possibly be free. As the GNU project points out in their discussions on licenses, it is sometimes a better idea to allow binary software. There are other operating systems than Linux (I hear there's a company in Redmond that makes one that's quite popular). If Linux discourages or forbids binary only drivers, the driver manufacturers won't make drivers for Linux (since, in many cases, they are bound by licenses that won't allow them to release open source drivers). If Linux doesn't have hardware support, then fewer people will be willing to use it, and thus fewer software companies will release Linux versions of their software. So far, Linux hardware support has been very good, but slow. New devices are often poorly supported. However, commercial drivers (binary and open source) have been starting to gain momentum, new hardware is more likely to have support, often from the manufacturers of the hardware themselves. I hope that the new 2.6 kernel won't stall that advancement, and seriously slow widespread adoption of Linux as a viable OS.

I fear you may confusing "Open Source" with "Free Software" a la the FSF.
I don't think Stallman will be too chuffed with your blurring of the distinction between the two...

Like this?

It doesn't make very much sense to say "Should I use UltraMonkey or LVS?" as the latter is a piece of the former. There are other combinations of LVS+other stuff that you might put into that sentence: "Should I use Piranha or UltraMonkey?" or "Should I use UltraMonkey or Joe Macks LVS Config scripts?" or even "Should I build my own LVS scripts or use an existing framework?"

There are other HTTP load balancing options out there. Squid has a new branch in CVS called rproxy that handles multiple backend web servers very effectively with failure detection and other fun stuff (not to mention caching). Pound is a reverse proxy that does load balancing of HTTP traffic and SSL wrapping (most everything Squid can do for reverse proxying minus the caching features).

Balance is a generic TCP load balancer with some nice features. The best features being that it is simple and works on more platforms than just Linux and handles more than just the HTTP protocol. It probably has some disadvantages for some situations because it operates at a lower level than the HTTP proxies above, though it can probably do lots of the same things LVS does (I don't know very much about Balance).

Eddie is a neat framework written in Ericssons Erlang language. Seems to be dormant, but I think it is in pretty widespread use so is probably pretty stable.

Links:

LVS
Squid rproxy branch
Pound
Balance
Eddie

This was exactly my suggestion, but a couple of others already seem to be suggesting it. Let's not mince words: "Knoppix Rocks!"

You get REAL desktop/user Linux, including StarOffice. On ThinkPad t20's and 600X's and recent Dell Inspirons I have had full video/audio support, and instant 802.11b with zero configuration effort!

USB drives work great for data, and are detected on boot. The Inspiron has FireWire and works too.

I have graduated to a slightly more complex setup - I use a 48MB PCMCIA "FlashDisk" to store rsa keys and persistant scripts. I can add my local user, and mount shares via AFS and ssh-tunnel after the desktop comes up - or not!

Here's a good question for Knoppix fans: Knoppix is obviously a great forensics and security tool, with all the bundled utilities and default ro mounting of all discovered local partitions. Net security is cool too. There is tcpdump, netcat, ethereal, iptraf, even nessus/nessusd! But why no snort!

It's not hard to build your own customized Knoppix (heck, it's Debian.) My next step is doing this, to ditch the scirpts on flash - move 'em into a local rc and include snort!

it would never be free software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html

That's a mighty-gay Gnu, if you ask me! Of which, you didn't ask me and I say Troll-away!

This story, which you all really should have read by now, depicts a world of copyright/DRM/Etc. laws to the extreme:
The Right to Read
The scariest line definitely comes after:
most of the specific laws and practices described above have already been proposed

I oppose Amazon.com's 1-Click Patent
As one of the founding programmers at Amazon.com, I was very dismayed to learn
of the company's legal attempts to enforce its 1-Click (TM) patent. ...
www.op.net/~pbd/amazon-1click.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazon, Barnes&Noble settle patent suit - Tech News - CNET.com
... The story behind Amazon's 1-Click patent Mark Grant, author, Law
and the Internet Play clip. Amazon.com said Wednesday that it ...
news.com.com/2100-1017-854105.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

Apple - Media & Analyst Information - Press Releases
Apple Licenses Amazon.com 1-Click Patent and Trademark. New Apple Online
Store with 1-Click Shopping Premieres Today CUPERTINO, California ...
www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/sep/18amazon.html - 11k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

Salon Technology | Amazon to world: We control how many times you ...
... The 1-Click patent suits suggest that the company is forsaking this understanding
for a more conventional, bare-knuckles corporate strategy. ...
www.salon.com/tech/log/1999/12/21/bezos/ - 23k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

www.oreilly.com -- Ask Tim! -- Software Patents Issue
... At the same time, I completely agree with RMS that the Amazon 1-Click Patent
is one more example of an intellectual property milieu gone mad. ...
Description: The founder of O'Reilly & Associates (the top computer manual publisher) criticizes Amazon's attempt...
Category: Society>Issues>IntellectualProperty>Paten ts
www.oreilly.com/ask_tim/amazon_patent.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazon's 1-Click Patent Survives Bounty Hunt
Amazon's 1-Click Patent Survives Bounty Hunt By Elizabeth Wasserman Issue Date: Mar
15 2001 No one wins the prize for invalidating the e-retailer's patent for ...
www.thestandard.com/article/display/ 0,1151,22862,00.html - 32k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

1 Click Results!
1-Click Patent: No Exact Match But Runners Up Will Split $10,000 Cash Prize. ... Read
Runners Up Profiles>>. History of the 1-Click Patent Conflict. ...
www.bountyquest.com/infocenter/1click.htm - 15k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

allNetDevices: - OpenTV Claims 1-Click Patent
... OpenTV Claims 1-Click Patent. Latest News. ...
www.allnetdevices.com/industry/news/ 2000/10/06/opentv_claims.html - 35k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

Amazon Loses Round in 1-Click Patent Case
Amazon Loses Round in 1-Click Patent Case ...
www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/7528.html - 10k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

I'm just wondering, how does Savannah fit in all this?

legit beef? oh heck yeah....

basically, here's the deal ... sf.net was founded and the code was released ... for a while the OS repository was maintained and SF grew to be big and strong ... then VA decided to try to make money from SF (no problem here, yet) ... they started selling it commercially to a few large companies who found it very useful ... as time went on they allowed their techs to interact with the OS community less and less with regard to SF bugs, features, etc (tim can speak more on this than i can, as he was one of these techs) ... they also weren't allowed to do things like write any installation routines or clean things up to make it more portable ... then VA decided to completely close the (GPL'd) code to SF, and proceeded to remove all traces of it from the site ... the CVS repository was deleted, downloadable packages were removed, and forums were even moved to a new slightly-hidden project (and if you ask me, they seemed to get a lot of strange off-topic posts suddenly, but that could just be paranoia on my part) ...

but, quite a few copies of SF2.6.1 (the last tagged CVS release) made it out the door before things imploded, and some folks took it up and ran with it ... Roland Mas, of the Debian-SF project, had already been working on a SF2.5-based package, which is now included in Debian's Stable distribution (woody). ... it's a slick, clean installation, quite impressive, and a 2.6-based version is in the works ... it is expected that GForge and Debian-SF will merge at some point, too ...

VA promised to release SF "2.7" in August of 2002, which has come and gone with not so much as a peep from VA ...

tim (or roland, or anyone really), kindly correct me if i'm off on these points, but this is how i understand the situation

my company faced a similar thing for one of our sponsors ... we were looking on the order of a few hundred log-ins, which would cost a completely absurd amount of money ... so we ended up building something based on the very slick Debian-SF system, a complete, installable package of SF2.5 (stable) or 2.6+(unstable/experimental) for Debian linux ... we've been incredibly pleased with it, and Roland and Christian (the maintainers of Debian-SF) have been a great help, as has been Tim P. and quite a few others active in the community...

actually, no, as best as I can understand it...

The interview link is down right now, so please forgive me if this is already discussed there.

The interview link is down right now, so please forgive me if this is already discussed there.

Anyway in the current copyright laws copying is defined like stealing

i'm afraid you are incorrect, at least in the united states.



Copyright apologists often use words like ``stolen'' and ``theft'' to describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.

So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system--at least in the US--rejects the idea that copyright infringement is ``theft.'' Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority...and misrepresenting what the authority says.

The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.

Are there better solutions than turning into an attack dog, ala the RIAA and the MPAA?

This is essentially the argument for DRM. You want to be able to provide electronic information but in a way that it cannot be duplicated at will. Both Intel and Microsoft are working hard on making this possible and within a few years better solutions will exist than exist now.

So the short answer to your question is "sort of, but in practice not for another 2 years or so". I'm sure other posters will address the sort of solutions. If you want to know what's coming Palladium FAQ.

The more important issue as an academic press is where you are going to stand on the right to read. Academia depends on a relatively free flow of information that is inexpensive. By its very nature what you are asking to do is be able to control the downstream flow of information.

You may find that when the technology is available it is rejected by the academic community. You'll then have to decide if you are primarily a commercial agency providing digital content like Disney or Time Warner; or primarily an academic agency which supports freedom of information exchange even at the cost of lost sales.

Anyway I suggest the following essay on the moral issues. the right to read.

If he had just bothered to read this,he might have had a little crediblity.

Or even this.

If he had just bothered to read this,he might have had a little crediblity.

Or even this.

Under the GPL, the licensee agrees not to sell or otherwise limit the reproduction of the software (though one is allowed to charge for costs of distribution, warranties, and services, as noted above in the discussion of Red Hat).

If he had just bothered to read this,he might have had a little crediblity. Instead, he chose to believe Microsoft FUD.

Do you think there is any chance Microsoft could release GNU/Linux or GNU/Hurd version of Microsoft Bob in a form of X11 window manager? It has very low system requirements (80486, 8MB RAM, 32MB HD) which makes it perfect for teaching kids the basics of computer usage (together with such projects like Debian Junior, GNU and Education, LinuxForKids, SEUL/edu, etc.) on low-end PC hardware. Some time ago, I was looking for a good window manager/desktop environment and, while there are many good applications, I couldn't find any graphical user interface itself, which would be similar to Microsoft Bob. What I need is not only something easy to learn, but also actually fun to play with, so the kids will want to learn the basics of computer science. Do you know any projects, which I could use here? (Free software would be the best.) Thanks.

Do you think there is any chance Microsoft could release GNU/Linux or GNU/Hurd version of Microsoft Bob in a form of X11 window manager? It has very low system requirements (80486, 8MB RAM, 32MB HD) which makes it perfect for teaching kids the basics of computer usage (together with such projects like Debian Junior, GNU and Education, LinuxForKids, SEUL/edu, etc.) on low-end PC hardware. Some time ago, I was looking for a good window manager/desktop environment and, while there are many good applications, I couldn't find any graphical user interface itself, which would be similar to Microsoft Bob. What I need is not only something easy to learn, but also actually fun to play with, so the kids will want to learn the basics of computer science. Do you know any projects, which I could use here? (Free software would be the best.) Thanks.

Do you think there is any chance Microsoft could release GNU/Linux or GNU/Hurd version of Microsoft Bob in a form of X11 window manager? It has very low system requirements (80486, 8MB RAM, 32MB HD) which makes it perfect for teaching kids the basics of computer usage (together with such projects like Debian Junior, GNU and Education, LinuxForKids, SEUL/edu, etc.) on low-end PC hardware. Some time ago, I was looking for a good window manager/desktop environment and, while there are many good applications, I couldn't find any graphical user interface itself, which would be similar to Microsoft Bob. What I need is not only something easy to learn, but also actually fun to play with, so the kids will want to learn the basics of computer science. Do you know any projects, which I could use here? (Free software would be the best.) Thanks.

Do you think there is any chance Microsoft could release GNU/Linux or GNU/Hurd version of Microsoft Bob in a form of X11 window manager? It has very low system requirements (80486, 8MB RAM, 32MB HD) which makes it perfect for teaching kids the basics of computer usage (together with such projects like Debian Junior, GNU and Education, LinuxForKids, SEUL/edu, etc.) on low-end PC hardware. Some time ago, I was looking for a good window manager/desktop environment and, while there are many good applications, I couldn't find any graphical user interface itself, which would be similar to Microsoft Bob. What I need is not only something easy to learn, but also actually fun to play with, so the kids will want to learn the basics of computer science. Do you know any projects, which I could use here? (Free software would be the best.) Thanks.

He doesn't actually say open source software, only free He doesn't actually say open source software, only free.

Amen. I absolutely agree. "open source" != "free software" I wish more people have read GNU Philosophy to know that. Please let me suggest you all (and by "you all" I mean all the people who do not yet understand the difference between open source and free software, not Eht of course) reading these particularly important texts:

1. The Free Software Definition
2. Debian Free Software Guidelines
3. Open Source Definition

When, in 1998, Eric Raymond took Debian Free Software Guidelines and renamed them as the Open Source Definition, he didn't want his new movement being misinterpreted as the Free Software Movement, and especially the strong philosophy associated with the term "free software" since at least 1983. Otherwise he would have used the old "free software" term, not the new "open source." Please let us have some respect to his work.