Slashdot Mirror

Linux is NOT unix

I believe what you meant to say here was GNU's NOT UNIX. :)

• But the code is still patented? No! A post from Dan Miller, CEO of On2 Technologies on vorbis-dev:
  
  > Really!?! All I can say is wow. What about the patent issues? Are you
  > granting royalty-free license to the required patents along with the license
  > to the code?
  That's a requirement of the LGPL, so, yes
  
  
• But what about VP4? It's a better codec, and it's proprietary. VP3 is old news. This is in fact the business model taken by some of the leading self-sustaining free software projects like GhostScript, which releases a non-commercial-with-source version and a GPL'd version of GhostScript that's about a year old. Thus, the GPL'd version comes with Linux distributions, non-commercial entities can make use of the latest GhostScript, the company makes money selling licenses to perpetuate the development of the Free Software version, and everyone's happy.

Hey there Arandir. I remember you. You're still at it I see.

Again, you make no sense. Not that you're going to agree with this sentiment. But...

The "GNU/Linux" naming convention was created for a reason. Not that I entirely agree with this reason, but it is a rational argument.

They've been developing GNU since 1984. Thats 18 years now. However, Linux beat the Hurd in development. Somehow, the OS was called "Linux" after the operating system kernal rather than after the rest of the OS. So I feel that adopting "GNU/Linux" is a compromise in the kernal's favor since it would take a lot more work to make Linux into a Unix-like OS than to make GNU into a Unix-like OS.

Not that any of this matters. This is all pretty much ancient history. People can call it whatever they like. But I like to keep in mind that the system is a GNU system just as much as it is a Linux system. By whatever name.

Also, claiming Mozilla is GNU software is a very silly statement to make. Not that you don't already know this. In fact, there's a process that software has to go through to become GNU software. This is actually beneficial to free software projects in many ways. Here's the GNU Software Evaluation Guidelines if you're at all interested. Hopefully apparent from this is that becoming GNU software is voluntary.

What you quoted was taken quite out of context. No one argues that Mozilla or Linux are GNU software. But they are free software (or open source if you rather). So you're free to install the software on your existing system and modify it to suit your needs and all that. And thats what GNU has done with X Windows. I'm sure BSD has done the same with X Windows. And Apple used its rights to take BSD and modify it into their proprietary kernal. Yet, somehow, you don't find anyone arguing that Mac OS X should be called FreeBSD (by naming it after the kernal). No one even argues that it should be called Apple/BSD. No compromise in this regard--its just MacOS X.

So on the whole, you're entire post is a pretty silly thing to say. But does it really matter?

RMS is the über-hacker from the MIT AI Lab who largely created Emacs and GCC and founded Project GNU and the Free Software Foundation.

Stallman is well known among free software fans as the writer of the GNU Public Licence, the licensing model used by most open-source software writers to ensure that their software remains in the public domain.

The whole idea of GPL and Copyleft in general is to not put the software in the public domain. Read What Is Copyleft, my emphasis:

Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well.

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. [...]

It's GNU General Public License, by the way.

Stallman is well known among free software fans as the writer of the GNU Public Licence, the licensing model used by most open-source software writers to ensure that their software remains in the public domain.

The whole idea of GPL and Copyleft in general is to not put the software in the public domain. Read What Is Copyleft, my emphasis:

Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well.

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. [...]

It's GNU General Public License, by the way.

Stallman is well known among free software fans as the writer of the GNU Public Licence, the licensing model used by most open-source software writers to ensure that their software remains in the public domain.

The whole idea of GPL and Copyleft in general is to not put the software in the public domain. Read What Is Copyleft, my emphasis:

Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well.

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. [...]

It's GNU General Public License, by the way.

That about sums it up. Most corporations are not in the software business; they have IT staff, but not programming and development staff....just guys that maintain and secure the servers and networks.

Most corporations are not in the car business, still I prefer to have a choice who can fix my car. You know how expensive are even the simplest things in brand authorized car service companies, now only imagine how much more expensive would it be if you were not even allowed to fix your car anywhere else.

These guys aren't going to desk-check all the code for buffer overflows and the like, they just want to install it, configure it, and apply security patches that the software developers wrote.

That's funny, because that's exactly what I do with my Debian boxes. Well, almost. I install them, configure, and I don't apply security patches, I just run apt-get upgrade.

Don't fool yourself, you don't have to check for buffer overflows when you use Debian and you don't have to check for buffer overflows when you use Windows (well, you can't anyway, so let's just say you don't have to). The difference is when you want to customize the software.

To customize IIS you have to hire Microsoft (good luck with that). To customize Apache you can hire someone from The Apache Software Foundation, you can hire someone from Apache Support Webring, you can hire someone from Covalent Technologies, Red Hat, Thawte, Dana Point Communications, or you can hire me - as we all have the source, we all know the internal API and we all have a right to customize Apache.

You can even use one of your guys that maintain and secure the servers and networks if the customizations you need are easy enough. Remember how Apache httpd internals are deigned. The most fancy customization is usually just a simple mod_perl module.

The same is with ASP versus Perl, MS-SQL versus MySQL, MSVC++ versus GCC, et cetera. Using free software is smarter from the business standpoint than using proprietary software, it's only the transition that's difficult, once you've got into the mess of proprietary file formats, protocols and "standards".

That about sums it up. Most corporations are not in the software business; they have IT staff, but not programming and development staff....just guys that maintain and secure the servers and networks.

Most corporations are not in the car business, still I prefer to have a choice who can fix my car. You know how expensive are even the simplest things in brand authorized car service companies, now only imagine how much more expensive would it be if you were not even allowed to fix your car anywhere else.

These guys aren't going to desk-check all the code for buffer overflows and the like, they just want to install it, configure it, and apply security patches that the software developers wrote.

That's funny, because that's exactly what I do with my Debian boxes. Well, almost. I install them, configure, and I don't apply security patches, I just run apt-get upgrade.

Don't fool yourself, you don't have to check for buffer overflows when you use Debian and you don't have to check for buffer overflows when you use Windows (well, you can't anyway, so let's just say you don't have to). The difference is when you want to customize the software.

To customize IIS you have to hire Microsoft (good luck with that). To customize Apache you can hire someone from The Apache Software Foundation, you can hire someone from Apache Support Webring, you can hire someone from Covalent Technologies, Red Hat, Thawte, Dana Point Communications, or you can hire me - as we all have the source, we all know the internal API and we all have a right to customize Apache.

You can even use one of your guys that maintain and secure the servers and networks if the customizations you need are easy enough. Remember how Apache httpd internals are deigned. The most fancy customization is usually just a simple mod_perl module.

The same is with ASP versus Perl, MS-SQL versus MySQL, MSVC++ versus GCC, et cetera. Using free software is smarter from the business standpoint than using proprietary software, it's only the transition that's difficult, once you've got into the mess of proprietary file formats, protocols and "standards".

Um ... if you have a problem with the GPL being called the General Public License then you should probably complain to GNU, not the Wall Street Journal.

It's the GPL, not the GGPL though it might more properly be called the GNU GPL. But calling the GPL the "General Public License" is just fine, regardless.

Um ... if you have a problem with the GPL being called the General Public License then you should probably complain to GNU, not the Wall Street Journal.

It's the GPL, not the GGPL though it might more properly be called the GNU GPL. But calling the GPL the "General Public License" is just fine, regardless.

What are you talking about? GPL==General Public License

From the GNU site: "...The GNU General Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short..."

Or how about the algorithms behind the ever-important strfry and the ubiquitous memfrob?

Or how about the algorithms behind the ever-important strfry and the ubiquitous memfrob?

What we really need is the Grey Spy as she always wins. Now, who is that Grey Spy?

-- Azaroth

Want a grammar/style checker for linux? Check out diction .

This is a free implementation of the one that has been in unix since forever. It includes two programs: diction, and style.

"Diction identifies wordy and commonly misused phrases. Style analyses surface characteristics of a document, including sentence length and other readability measures. "

Why other people have not pointed you to this is beyond me. Maybe OpenOffice.org can include hooks to this program, since that will enable them to provide basic grammar checking capabilities with hardly any effort at all.

Anyway, I hope your wife doesn't see that you were talking about her dependence on a grammar checker on slashdot! Whether or not this or other posts turn out to be helpful, talking about other people (particularly other people who live with you and know _exactly_ how to make your life miserable) behind their backs is very bad karma... ;)

However, good luck.

Case

Ok, I know it's too late for people to see this, but I'd like to set you straight:

Libranet is under no obligation to offer a free download under the GPL. They only obligation they have is to provide you with the source if you ask for it, at the cost of distribution. They can charge for the binaries whatever the market will bear.

See the GNU GPL for more details.

Since when does the patent office deny a patent?

They allow patents on things for which prior art exists, even things for which prior PATENTS exist. IBM got a patent on LZW and then Unisys was granted their patent on it - the patent office either didn't check for a prior patent or didn't realize the 2 patents described the same thing.
And Unisys wants us to pay THEM? IBM should be more pissed than they are.

Oh, yeah, they will deny a patent for a "perpetual motion device", unless you are clueful enough to call it something different, like an "overunity device". 1/2 ;)

Here is a GNU page describing the GIF situation and mentioning the 2 LZW patents.

Also, even if someone can afford to fight a lawsuit - the odds are stacked against them. A patent is presumed valid and the defendant must rebut that with a preponderance of the evidence, or lose. This is a reversal of the normal situation in civil law, which is where the plaintiff needs to have preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff needs to have a preponderance of the evidence that the action alleged to be infrigement occurred - but the defendant has to prove the patent is invalid.

So if the court can't tell who is right on the latter issue, they'll presume the patent valid and you guilty.

Ask a lawyer for legal advice. (if you got tons of cash lying around to pay for one)

Another good option, using entire free (both as in speech and as in beer) software, is VNC, tunneled through SSH, tunneled through GNU HTTP tunnel.

Although I've used straigh X forwarding, I generally prefer VNC because of the ability to kill the connection (either intentionally or not) and reconnect later to the same session.

If we're talking about the stock footage, what can you really do with that? ... You can't make something totally new like you can with algorithms and existing code.

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
  
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  

• The freedom to watch the show, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  
• The freedom to study how the show works, and edit the footage to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the raw footage is a precondition for this.
  
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). [not changed]
  
• The freedom to improve the show, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the raw footage is a precondition for this.
  

As far as I understand Stallman's paper on the original Emacs, the original Emacs was written directly in TECO. The same paper appears to indicate that the first Emacs written in LISP was Multics EMACS.

Stallman writes :-

Indeed, there are ways in which EMACS shows the results of not having been completely thought out in advance: such as, in being based on TECO rather than Lisp

As far as I understand Stallman's paper on the original Emacs, the original Emacs was written directly in TECO. The same paper appears to indicate that the first Emacs written in LISP was Multics EMACS.

Stallman writes :-

Indeed, there are ways in which EMACS shows the results of not having been completely thought out in advance: such as, in being based on TECO rather than Lisp

Early on in my career, I wrote a great deal of docs & was responsible for getting the coders to document their stuff. Here's what I found works:

1. Internal code docs: make it a requirement that interfaces and subroutine behavior are documented. Enforce this with code review (which is a great idea anyway). File noncritical bugs against undocumented code. Do this enthusiastically, and eventually your coders will expect to see good docs in their fellows' code.

Tools: freeform embedded docs are OK here; they're only read by programmers. If your group has a code style policy, add a doc style to it.

2. Programmer docs: it takes a programmer to write docs for programmers, and the internal code docs mentioned above won't cut it when you need to create an API manual. Instead, you'll either have to be lucky (or medieval) enough to find (or force) a programmer to generate the docs, or you will have to train up a tech writer to be a programmer. The latter is slower, but overall more effective.

Tools: Programmers read docs while writing code, so that means paper output or docs they can view in or near their code editor. Plain HTML is surprisingly poor for reference docs, but if you add effective searching & automatic crossrefs, it's OK (see the online Apache docs for example).

I like creating docs in FrameMaker (from Adobe) since it outputs serviceable HTML w/indices, graphics, & crossrefs, has an excellent WYSIWYG editor, gracefully handles massive documents up to encyclopedia size, prints books well, is available on Win/Mac/UNIXen, and (very important) stores files in a diff-able (plays well with CVS) format.

3. End user docs. These are best written by a tech writer who's also a power user. You'll find that most programmers are not power users; they know their own bit of the system extremely well, but bupkus about the rest and often aren't really interested in using the whole product for which they're coding. Make sure the people selling/promoting the product review end-user docs, too.

4. File bugs against docs. This has been mentioned elsewhere, but it bears repeating: treat errors and missing features in your docs at least as rigorously as you treat code bugs. Make sure the support folks can and do file bugs; they're the people who hear about the bugs after release.

Tools: gnats is the bomb: simple, cheap, modifiable, works anywhere. Make a doc-bug category that your writers manage.

5. Put tech writers on the engineering team. Many organizations think docs are sales materials or something, so they put the writers in the sales, marketing, or support department. This makes for bad docs. Instead, tech writers should work next to and at the pace of coders. Ideally, doc writing starts as soon as the design phase completes. (You do have a design phase, right?) Good in-progress docs are an excellent roadmap for the coders, and result in the docs & code converging on completion at the same time.

6. Hire or grow professional writers. Pretty much anyone who speaks the language can write good docs, but only people who like writing will stick to it through ten releases. Personally, I didn't know I liked writing until someone hired me to do it. Presto, professional writer!

Not entirely..

Here is the faq entry worth reading.

It basically says that you can charge one price for the binary and up to the same price again for the source.
This is not ideal, nor what I would expect, but its there in the FSF's own faq.

I hope V3 addresses this.

The question is, why should they have chosen [the] GPL for this product?

Because unlike so many other free software licenses, the GNU GPL is written by an organization well-versed in both programming and law, it now has genuine court time under its belt (with a judge that shows no indication of finding it to be an invalid license), and it has language to handle a number of cases that come up (including patented code, maintaining software freedoms for derivative works, distinguishing between linking and executing as a separate program).

More importantly, they should have selected a license they understood and agreed with. I cringed early on when Shawn Gordon indicated his ignorance:

I didn't really care so much, or pay attention to all the licensing stuff...

There's the first problem. People who ignore software licensing can not run a software business effectively. Gordon should have taken the time to learn about licensing or he should have hired someone to train him on the details of licensing. Licensing is as important to your code as your code is to your business. If you ignore licensing, you will regret it. If you find out too late you don't agree with the license you chose, you might have already done something not in line with your business plan. This is nobody's fault but his.

If this product is a derivative work, then they were forced to use [the] GPL.

Nobody is ever forced to use the GPL because nobody is forced to derive their program from a GPL'd work. It's important not to overlook that they could have written their code from scratch or based their work on something else.

In that case, charging high reproduction fees to create a barrier to users (as Mr. Gordon frankly admits he is doing) is a violation at the very least of the spirit of GPL, if not a legal violation.

It is not any kind of violation. You are encouraged to charge as much money as you can get for distributing free software. The "free" in free software refers to freedom, not price, and giving away your free software is wasting an opportunity to make money for development.

In this case he has no right to complain about people attempting to find clever ways to get their hands on source code without paying...

Gordon does appear rather unclear on the GPL. But, not paying attention "to all the licensing stuff" will do that to you.

As for selling GPL source, this is permitted, though I thought that there was some cap on price, based on reasonable distribution expenses (media, shipping, overhead, etc.)

Your point has been debunked already but I thought you'd want an authoritative essay on selling free software and a brief GPL FAQ reference to payment.

As for selling GPL source, this is permitted, though I thought that there was some cap on price, based on reasonable distribution expenses (media, shipping, overhead, etc.)

Your point has been debunked already but I thought you'd want an authoritative essay on selling free software and a brief GPL FAQ reference to payment.

In fact, you don't need to have the source available for everyone publicly - you can limit the source distribution to those who purchased the product from you.

Wrong. According to the GNU GPL, if you're going to satisfy section 3 by offering CDs via mail order, you must

Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

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

I'm not sure if I read it correctly, but did it read that the basic LX install did NOT include the source code? So are they shipping a version that violates the GPL?

They don't have to ship the sources with the binaries; they're only violating the GPL if they refuse to provide the source code to a customer that requests it. They can even charge a fee for providing the source, and still not be in violation of the GPL. You can read the GPL here".

Check it out.

I'm not sure if I read it correctly, but did it read that the basic LX install did NOT include the source code? So are they shipping a version that violates the GPL? I did see that the upgraded more expensive version includes 3 additional CD's, with one of them being marked as the source code disk. Could someone clear this up for me?

That isn't a violation - the source just has to be available, for a reasonable amount. Several good comments were posted in the Shawn Gordon story - see here, here and, of course, here.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source [...]
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, [...]
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code [...]

So, you don't need to distribute the source with the binary, but you do need to make it available.

Actually, it's the (GNU) General Public License.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

They can charge as much as they like for the source, as long as it is not more than the cost of the binary. See this answer in the GPL faq. Also read up on the FSF's position regarding 'selling software.'

They can charge as much as they like for the source, as long as it is not more than the cost of the binary. See this answer in the GPL faq. Also read up on the FSF's position regarding 'selling software.'

They can charge as much as they like for the source, as long as it is not more than the cost of the binary. See this answer in the GPL faq. Also read up on the FSF's position regarding 'selling software.'

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

I know, it's just a joke, but spreading a distortion of the truth, even in humour, is potentially harmful.

At the CeBIT the Federal German Ministry of Economics distributes for free the mail encryption program GnuPP 1.1 complete with manual. The mail roboter Adele shall provide a lead-in to the issue by practising the krypto mail communication together with the user.

The Federal German Ministry of Economics is supporting the open source project GnuPP (GNU Privacy Project) since the year 2000. With that the Ministry wants to provide the development of a cryptography infrastructure that does not depend on manufacturers, that is safe and corresponds to international standards. It would not be recommended to use standard software in security sensitive areas and the Ministry explicitly warns to do so in its press release. Only the open source principle allows the user to look at the complete programming of a software, and that means security to the greatest extent.

Apart from the software the package of the Ministry contains a two-piece manual that is completely new written and designed. With the help of this manual even laypersons shall be able to clear the first hurdle of e-mail encryption. And something else is new: "Adele" (adele@gnupp.org), an exercise roboter for practising the procedure of encryption and decryption as often as the entry-level user will need it. Adele reacts to sent-in public keys and encrypted e-mails, sends its own public key, and answers to encrypted and decrypted incoming e-mails. In this way a dialog between correspondence partners is formed so that entry-level users can practise transactions of e-mail encryption "like in real life" and may gain confidence in the safety of this procedure.

At the CeBIT one can get the GnuPP package (manual with CD-ROM) for free at the stands of the Federal German Ministry of Economics. During the entire fair the Ministry also provides presentations and advisory service for free.

For background informations and details on the fair please surf tecCHANNEL.DE and read our big CeBIT Special (German only, please bear with us). Moreover we have compiled for you all CeBIT news in category-specific news channels. (jlu/bmu)

Federal German Ministry of Economics: pavilion11, stand D25

Pavillon D / 11, stands 76 and 5

A quote from the FAQ which I believe applies to your situation:
"The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."

Greg

Just because you don't pay for using your neighbor's broadband via 802.11 doesn't mean that they don't pay for it, or their telco/cable co.

WTF??? Where was it mentioned in the parent post that the wireless network was going to be used in this manner? If your neighbors set up their networks so that anyone on a nearby wireless hub can access their ISP's service, then they are complete dumbasses! (for several reasons) Why do so many incompetant idiots instantly believe any new technology will be used only for some illegal purpose?

If wireless networks live up to the promise, they can replace ISPs--not burden ISP's backs. It's true you wouldn't be able to access a site on the other side of the planet, or maybe even on the other side of your state, but you could IM, play games or fileshare with nearly anyone in your city.

...and when I say fileshare I mean legally distribute files--such as programs that you are allowed under the license (as BSD, 'freeware', LGPL, and etc.) or audio/video/picture files that someone created and wants to give away free. What's that you say? If I take a picture of a stray cat, record myself farting, or videotape a roadtrip I take, then the copyright is owned by the MPAA/RIAA? Yeah right!

Freedom of information doesn't mean information is free. Just 'cause you can legally read the book doesn't mean you don't have to buy the book.

I don't have to buy the book to read it if the book has entered the public domain (check out Project Gutenburg) or the author has authorised it to be distributed under the GNU Free Documentation License

> Yes...I tend to agree that they pretend to be more open than they really are. I do take issue with that much more than the proprietary nature of Java itself. I'm not sure what you're referring to about undoced native functions and gcj.

I strongly suggest you read the relevant gcj FAQ entry -- I think you may be underestimating how proprietary it is.

> And youre right that GC doesnt solve all the memory management issues. wish all people thought that ;)

Yep. In fact, when we used Swing last year, we had lots of trouble with memory leaks in the libraries. Aargh!

> Perl is very handy but there are many projects I wouldn't want to touch with it.

What sorts of projects? As long as your programmers are skilled, I think performance is the only real problem.

> That being said I wouldnt use anything else for lots of my scripting and admin tasks.

I find that using map(), grep(), sub{} expressions, and the class system makes manipulating complex data structures very easy. And most performance-sensitive things are done off in C libraries.

> I just can't deal with C++ anymore.... Are generic containers less verbose?

I think so.

using namespace std;
...
map<int,int> foo;
foo[1] = 2;
cout << foo[1];

The main place where I encounter verbosity is in using STL iterators, but even there I don't see that its any less verbose that Java, where you are either using iterators or for loops.

> Its too "dirty" and there are far to many things it leaves you to deal with.

I think C++ is way too complicated, but if you stick to unix, the overall experience isn't too yucky. What irritates me about STL is the compiler-compatibility problems, particularly on MS Windows.

> I think Java's best space is in enterprise-level applications. I dont see Perl being all that useful there nor C++....

I'm not sure what you mean by "enterprise-level applications" -- do you mean things like the EToys ecommerce system? If you mean, "we have to sell this thing to a PHB who will only buy it if it is written in Java," then, okay, I guess that's the only option.

> I'd be curious to know what app server or servlet container youre using. Several are notorious for what you're reporting.

They are using Tomcat. Tomcat 4 doesn't seem to be any faster than 3; both have about 10 times the latency of Apache for "hello world."

We tried out Resin last year, and it was much better than Tomcat, but building your app on a hidden-source-code foundation is just asking for trouble down the line. Not to mention having to deal with licensing issues.

> And anyhow Apache said things are getting better and they have support from others (like IBM).

Then IBM should release an LGPL implementation of the JVM and class libraries, and everyone should use that. As things stand now, Sun has control, and they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.

Seriously, read the GCJ FAQ entry and think about it for a minute or two. What Sun is doing is pretty insidious.

Life is made more difficult because there is buggy and/or broken hardware out there. I don't blame Redhat for accomodating this hardware, but by doing so they are making their distribution more complicated and less useful for those "in the know".

Redhat also, of course, distributes the non-kernel binaries optimized for Intel 80386 CPU's when the vast vast majority of installs are going on Pentium-class or better machines. And it doesn't help any that Redhat is using and distributing a very nonstandard version of GCC; see what the GCC developers say about such branches and what application developers say about this branch.

To actually learn a lot about Linux and all the associated tools that make it work, I highly recommend the Linux From Scratch method: build everything from source! You can optimize the build to your machine and end up with not only better performance, but a vastly superior knowledge of everything that used to be "under the hood".

Blender is very nice. I have both 3DS MAX and Blender 2.0. I prefer Blender - it's faster, far more stable, runs on Linux, has a game engine, makes AVI's, and I was planning upon using it for my game engine, DPGE ( Main web site and CVS repository). Though I can still use it, it's a drag that there will no longer be support or improvements to it. :(

- Rohan

I know it's not open source, but have you tried the Summarize feature in Microsoft Word? I fed it the entire contents of the GNU website and it came back with:

GNU is rubbish. Don't use the viral GPL! Bill is your friend. You love Bill. Microsoft software is the best.

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 suggest you read the document I linked to - it explains why the APSL isn't Copyleft.

RMS for one is payed for by the tax-payers.

RMS doesn't draw a salary. And he is definitely not paid by the taxpayers.