Slashdot Mirror

1. Yes, those Linux distributions are free. I don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, those companies charge for distribution to you. But if I had a copy of them, I could distribute it to you for free.

2. MS has a monopoly on system preloads. Preloaded system count for 95% of PC marketshare. You cannot buy a pre-built system without paying the MS tax. If any manufacture starts to sell pre-built systems without a Windows license, their OEM Windows price goes up. That's illegal use of monopoly power.

So it's not strictly true that I'm wealthy right now. I will be wealthy in six months, unless VA or the U.S. economy craters before then.

Microsoft is, after all, a tech millionaire's club.

I didn't think RMS could top the hubris of demanding five years ago that the developers of KDE ask forgiveness for an alleged GPL violation, after the circumstances of the violation no longer applied.

Apparently, he can.

The GPL is a means of protecting the "openess" of open-source code. It is not a proper tool for behavior modification and cultural engineering--nor should it be.

I found a vague reference to this at Linux Today, dated back in 1999, but nothing else. Is there anything more current on this? Or matbe Slashdot is just a bit late on this story?

The Samba team publicly denoucned SCO for their GPL contridictions:
 
  We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways. SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
 
The strength of Open Source/Free Software is that it is available to all without restrictions on fields of endeavor, as the Samba Team believes the ability to freely use, modify and learn from software code is one of the grounding principles of computer science, and a basic freedom for all.
 
Because of this, we believe that the Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.
 
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
 
Jeremy Allison,
Marc Kaplan,
Andrew Bartlett,
Christopher R. Hertel,
Jerry Carter,
Jean Francois Micouleau,
Paul Green,
Rafal Szczesniak.
 
Samba Team.
 
  Taken from: http://linuxtoday.com/developer/2003082001326OSCYN T

This is all well and good now that everyone is beginning to realise that the "emperor" has no clothes.
Lets not forget just how Nasty they were getting.
Not only fundamentally threatening the most innovative part of computer software in the last decade (open source), but also using legal standover tactics to extort money from big corporations (Chrysler) and "exposed ISPs" EV1 for example.
They must have known from the start that they had no leg to stand on (how could they not have?). They should all be sent to jail IMHO. an example of 14 months ago shenanigans.... http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2004030101326N WCDMR

Actually, the one-click patent cited in the GNU link was really not so obvious after all. Even Tim O'Reilly, the man that offered $10,000 rewards for finding prior art to this, has later admitted this.

FYI, this article has already been ripped to shreds in the comments at Linux Today:

here

This pretty much sums it up:

Lutz's IT group rewrote a complex, real-time airline pricing application that serves hundreds of thousands of travel agents around the world and that also acts as the system of record for all of United Airlines' ticket reservations. When this application came up on Linux, it proved to be so demanding--it handles up to 700 pricing requests per second--that it completely redefined Cendant's expectations about what it would take to get Linux to work. "We have broken every piece of software we've ever thrown at this platform, including Linux itself," says Lutz.

With Big Iron you're paying a LOT of money. But you're not paying it for nothing. Big Iron will give you a lot of guarantees for stability, reliability, and thoroughput that don't exist on other systems. The key to this CIO's success is that he was willing to accept the challenges of doing Big Iron work on Little Brass systems. As long as you work all the details out yourself, this *can* work. (As Google has so eloquently proven.) The issue is that you're working without a safety net. If things go really wrong, there's no backup army of specially trained techs to run in and fix things. (And trust me, if you're paying enough money you'll have your own personal army of techs.)

The upshot to all of this is that if the gamble pays off, it pays off in a big way. All that money you were spending for a personal army, plus some other company's R&D now goes into your own pockets. You don't get away scott free (someone has to maintain the systems), but you see your rewards. And isn't that what business is about? Taking risks and making profits? If you've got the infrastructure to go for something like this, then go ahead and grab fate by the balls. No one ever got anywhere in life by playing it safe. ;-)

The "black box" of open source has transformed into something any CIO can appreciate: reliable performance and consistent uptime. The penguin can fly now.

Samba is also released under GPL, which SCO has been including for a while.

I thought it was commendable for the Samba team to take the high road when they released a letter saying that even though Samba was being used "by rank hypocrites like SCO", they would still stick by their principles and make their software freely available to anyone.

It will be interesting to see if there are any reactions from the other OSS projects included with OpenServer 6.

I happen to be a very good friend of the guy who started LinuxFund several years ago, an MBA named Benjamin Cox. Though, since he likes setting up businesses more than running them, he stepped down some time ago -- he's currently starting up a used book store in Israel, while doing all kinds of international business for a steel-drilling company off the coast of Gibraltor that he co-founded. So, yes, he's an old school entrepreneur. And he's also done all kinds of random cool stuff, while he was at LinuxFund (http://news.com.com/2100-1040-231179.html?legacy= cnet for example). Here's a news article from it's founding: http://features.linuxtoday.com/developer/199908270 0210NW

The basic premise is this: members get a MasterCard (with a Tux on it!), and a small portion of all the purchases they make on it goes to LinuxFund. And, yes, even Linus Torvalds has one of these credit cards. Sadly, no, I don't, as I didn't meet him until after he left LinuxFund (though I wouldn't mind one!).

Every so often, the members of the LinuxFund then vote on where this money goes. They give a bunch of small grants (generally only 4 digits) to worthy OSS projects, like Xiph, bittorrent development, etc. Therein lies the problem... Since the LinuxFund is defunct, there aren't really any regular meetings for the membership.

But, as the precedence has always been that the members vote on where the money goes, it would make sense that there should be some kind of voting system on what to do with the remaining money. Knowing the spirit that this was created in, it should probably go to some kind of other Linux/Unix grant providing thing... Maybe to start ups, or as University Scholarship money...

Heh. Maybe I should ask Benjamin... *eyes clock* Stupid 10 hour time difference.

more "free"?

The question is "more free for whom".

The BSD licences allow anyone to use the code for any purpose, but that can include taking a free software project proprietary. The GPL guarantees that a project cannot be taken and turned into something proprietary.

RMS and the people who agree with him want to maximize the freedom of the end-user, even at the expense of the developer. The most extreme case of this is that RMS would like to require that all new software be released under GPL.[1] Very, very few people agree with this idea.

Note that the GPL has some cool points. IBM was willing to license some patents to Linux for free, because Linux is GPLed. IBM can allow Linux to use its technology but can still charge money to anyone who wants to use this technology in proprietary applications. There is no chance that IBM will ever release any patented technology under a BSD license, since IBM would no longer be able to charge any royalties on that technology.

Some coders hate the thought that their labour of love might be taken by someone else and turned proprietary. Those coders will prefer to release code under GPL. Other coders like the thought that anyone can do anything with their code, and they might even hate the thought of someone having to re-create similar code because of a licence incompatibility. Those coders will prefer a BSD-style license. Personally, I'm glad we all have this choice.

[1] Google for the whole "Freedom Zero" debate. ESR made a public challenge to RMS: if you could pass a law requring all software to be released under the GPL, would you? RMS declined to answer. It's pretty clear he would, since he rejects the idea that "he who writes the code chooses the licence" (RMS wrote that this idea isn't "Freedom Zero", it is "Power Play Zero" because the coder is exerting power over the poor, poor users). Here, I googled and found it for you: Freedom or Power?

ESR's challenge Freedom, Power, or Confusion?

Maybe you'll believe Eric Raymond when he verified that it actually happened.

http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003082501026 NWCYLL

Now bend over and prepare to be ass-raped by the likes of IBM and Apple who will make millions off your work without ever giving you a cent.

After your done with that, read this and laugh. It will make you feel better. What an idiot.

Linuxtoday editor thinks so

Editor's Note: Screed Attempts to Silence Voice Against SCO
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2005050900926 OPBZ

> This is open source. Other people can modify it how they choose. They then post back those changes. Tough shit if those changes aren't useful.

It's still bad manners to start off with an unnecessary fork.

And that's what Apple did. They developed Webcore in secret based on some version of KHTML. Then, in their initial release announcement they still talked about "crossplatform KHTML and an adapter lib". That didn't sound bad at the time:

"...takes the cross-platform KHTML library (part of the KDE project) and combines it with an adapter library specific to WebCore called KWQ that makes it work with Mac OS X technologies. KHTML is written in C++ and KWQ is written in Objective C++, but WebCore presents an Objective C programming interface."

Source: This article from 2003

They could have developed KHTML in the KDE CVS together with KDE, and their adapter lib in their own system. They didn't.

Today there doesn't seem to be anything left of this separation between platform-specific and platform-independent parts. Ugly.

Besides, Apple releases the source code in big lumps when a new webcore release comes out, without version history (Note: I'm not talking about Hyatt's patches here.). That's what makes it extremely hard for the KDE developers to find out what set of changes make up what bugfix or feature enhancement. Readonly access to Apple's revision control system would have remedied that but was denied.

All perfectly legal, it's just that it's not nice. No cooperation that deserves that name and a clear sign that Apple still hasn't understood how Open Source works. They could have done better.

--| Richard Stallman on How to Deal with Microsoft |-----

The following is Mirrored from: http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4999.html

Richard Stallman proposes three remedies that would help enable free
software operating systems such as GNU/Linux compete technically while
respecting users' freedom. These three remedies directly address the three
biggest obstacles to development of free operating systems, and to giving
them the capability of running programs written for Windows. They also
directly address the methods Microsoft has said (in the "Halloween
documents") it will use to obstruct free software. It would be most
effective to use all three of these remedies together.

1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces
between software components, all communications protocols, and all file
formats. This would block one of Microsoft's favourite tactics: secret and
incompatible interfaces.

To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be allowed to
use a nondisclosure agreement with some other organization to excuse
implementing a secret interface. The rule must be: if they cannot publish
the interface, they cannot release an implementation of it.

It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin
implementation of an interface before the publication of the interface
specifications, provided that they release the specifications
simultaneously with the implementation.

Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other software
developers complain that the published documentation fails to describe
some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain job, the court would
direct Microsoft to answer questions about it. Any questions about
interfaces (as distinguished from implementation techniques) would have to
be answered.

Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the European
Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute. See
http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ibm/ibm1984ec.h tml.

2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of
software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those
other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be
exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft mentioned in the
Halloween documents: using patents to block development of free software.

We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense or mutual
defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all patents at no
charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual defense means licensing all
patents to a pool which anyone can join -- even people who have no patents
of their own. The pool would license all members' patents to all members.

It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does no good to
have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed to work some
patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it gives access to),
such that the rest of us are not allowed to implement it.

3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft
software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been
published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the
same hardware.

Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's doing, but
they are a significant obstacle for the development of the free operating
systems that can provide competition for Windows. To remove this obstacle
would be a great help. If a settlement is negotiated with Microsoft,
including this sort of provision in it is not impossible -- it would be a
matter of negotiation.

This April, Microsoft's Ballmer announced a possible plan to release
source code for some part of

The APSL does not play well with OSS. If I hack on APSL code, and then end up suing Apple for, say, anything, even if it's unrelated to the software, I lose my rights to use that software. An old link that still rings true.

I know you're not a Comcast customer because you're online instead of suffering with their randomm DNS outages /rant of a fustrated Comcast customer.

Back in 1998, when I got my home DSL line from Pacific Bell (now SBC), it had a fixed IP address, and required no software to install. I still have the same line, same fixed IP address.

I had constant problems with Pac Bell's DNS, and Email relaying was intermittent and usually slow.

So, I got a cheezo (and I mean CHEEZO!) old pentium, Red Hat 6.x, and set up my own Email/DNS/NAT gateway. I worked at it, until I felt familiar with the *nix command line while doing all this. That computer, hardware upgraded a few times, and now running RedHat 7.2 with progeny updates for security patches, runs today, and is routing the packets this post is submitted on.

I was new to Linux. Time went by, and my skillset steadily improved with frequent hits to here, Root Prompt, Linux Today, the local Barnes and Noble for a big, fat book every few months, and whatever else strikes my fancy.

Now, years later, I get paid quite well by several companies to provide these exact services - Email, DNS, etc. as well as various Database and Web-based softwares.

Take your frustrations, and turn them to your advantage. It's a path. Walk it, work to be the best, and it'll pay nicely. Oh, and I never have problems with SBC's DNS or SMTP relays, since I haven't used either since 1998!

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-05 -06-012-26-OS-SM-LL

If it didn't work in Asia, why would it work in Brazil?

because this
doesn't work. Like in Peru.
A shame for the President of Peru .

There is an article about "The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent" written by RMS. It may be a nice introduction to the topic if you want to read more complex patent texts.

This was announced earlier this week:
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2005030902626 NWDTHW

Better yet was this article that Linux Today fell for, and ran as a legit story. I laughed pretty hard.

Nope. He advocated a vote for either UKIP or the Green Party as the only two UK parties that opposed EUsoftware patents.

See his open letter, where he says:
"Please, if you were not going to vote, either vote for the UKIP or Green-EFA alliance members."

That said, I personally feel that UKIP showed no real knowledge of the patent debate, opposing it only for being 'European', and thus leaving the door open to a UK patent legislation. The greens had a much better grasp of matters.

I do share the posters concern about voting UKIP - they're a ridiculous bunch of racist scum.

John

Have a look at this:
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/mailprint.php 3?action=pv&ltsn=2004-09-07-024-26-RV-MD-MS

What would the capitalist view of the general public license (GPL) license be?

The GPL is by no means a coercive or deceptive license. It clearly states the rights and obligations of any party who accepts its terms. It offers access to the intellectual wealth created by a producer, for a certain consideration.

The consideration is that any derived works that are publicly distributed must also be made available under the same terms. This consideration may seem strange, but stranger contracts have been known to exist, which are legally valid and defensible.

The important thing is, there is nothing in the terms of the GPL that is illegal, coercive or deceptive. If the terms of the GPL are unacceptable to any party, those people are at liberty to walk away. However, once they agree to the license, they are bound by its terms and cannot renege on the deal.
-----------------
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

Ayn Rand believed that there is no such thing as "public property." What is commonly referred to as such is the private property of a government.

She would probably have had no use for "public domain" software, treating it as wealth without an owner. However, Open Source software, including all of GPL-ed software, is copyrighted by its authors, and hence is not "public domain" but clearly privately owned.

Not only that, since the software is owned by none other than its creators, Ayn Rand would have had no argument at all with the property ownership aspect of Open Source.

http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2001051601220 OP

Darwin is licensed under the Apple Public Source License (APSL), which is a non-free license in Stallman's opinion.

Definition of emulation "When one system performs in exactly the same way as another, though perhaps not at the same speed."
Looks like they're just trying to do what these guys are already doing! Copying but without the speed.

You can do what I do these days-- Use the konqueror + kio_audiocd combo. Really smooth. All you have to do is to insert the audio cd and browse it using konquerer ( audiocd:// ) You will actually see an ogg directory. All that is to be done is a simple drag and drop. You wont have to do any scripting. All you have to do is insert your CD and remove it. Redefines the whole ripping experience. I repeat -- Smooth.

Check this out.

Anyway, Here's a copy of the article on linuxtoday.com.

Remember when Telstra (Australias largest telecoms provider) went to Linux. Then it turned out they were doing it just to get a discount from MS?
Hilarious. Wonder if this is the same. I can't imagine an australian government agency would use any software that doesn't contribute to the American Corporate machine. I'm sure that's illegal under John Howard.

Linux Today?

To reach solid decision's, youl'l need more infermation then the slashdot writeup supplies. Like this article featured on linuxtoday.com, which are surely slightly more independent than IBMs' press release's; (click complete story under the summary) From it:

The DS8000 is unique in the industry because it features two logical partitions too run management or utility applications such as the companies SAN Volume Controller and Tivoli Storage Manager for backup and data management.

That sounds like a pretty interesting feature. Anybody's in the industry care to comment on the portential for these new development?

This article on lightreading.com elaborates a little more.

IBM's DS8000 handles virtualization different then the competition. While HDS does virtualization in the controller and EMC plans virtualization on intelligent switches IBMs' new system does virtualization at the chip level (see EMC on Virtualization: Wait for Us ). Using the Power5's IBM Virtual Engine, the DS800 can divide servers into logical partitions (LPARs). Each LPAR can run different storage systems that run separate code. ... "You can run different operating systems, even different releases of operating systems on isolated LPAR's. Rock!"

Thats a truly impressive level of flexibility their. And of course, its great for Linux, the ability to run multiple OSe's in hardware on one box play's to Linuxes strength's and deal's a blow to Microsoft's monopoly lockin strategy. What Im really shocked about is that there slashdot writeup included only some bland "durr big numbers" product placement, while IBM is effecting an interesting Linux-related change's in the marketplace's if you look a little deeper.

--sig: why a duck?

Reprint from:

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2004-08 -27-016-26-OP-BZ-MS-0008

Seems a bit of a no-brainer. Patents will be used to suppress free development more and more vigorously, maybe at least until people get so annoyed there's a revolution or something (paper-pushing career bureaucrats sometimes forget that the geeks are the ones that build the weapons, in the end...)

If Europe is stupid enough to allow software patents (and they may well be...), then Microsoft may go on a patent offensive. People thinking "oh IBM will then too" are missing the point - that would be the "chicago prison shuffle" - Microsoft may send Linux geeks running to IBM, but then they'll just be controlled by IBM's patent portfolio, and IBM will then innovate (as in bring new technology to market) in a controlled, slow, understandable by MBA jackasses pace, and the IT industry oligopoly can go back to being a cosy feudal system where Microsoft feels at home - even if they have to compete, it's with comprehensible, corporate enemies, not a massy swarm of globally-distributed and loudly bickering free people that innovate whenever they feel like it and, it must seem to Microsoft, totally at random in catastrophe curve adoption patterns (what? they have antialiasing? Last year they had crappy 1-bit fonts!?!) - only patents can give the old guard power to slow that sort of thing.
"Choice of Masters is Not Freedom". I don't trust IBM much more than I like Microsoft. Recognise that software patents, so helpfully identified by the Open Source community as "something that can kill or cripple open source" in the 1990s, will be used to do just that, unless we stop them!

Now replace IBM in the above by their proxy, "Novell"

DO NOT TRUST Novell.DO NOT TRUST IBM. They are not your friends. Whether it's Microsoft's or IBM's or Novell's patent portfolio, control is wrested away from us, the citizen developers, by software patents. Software patents themselves are WRONG. Always remember that.

but if this gives you a woody, you have issues.

but if this gives you a woody, you have issues. Now this on the other hand...

As an actively employed "Linux Systems Administrator" (my real job title) I must concur with "damiangerous." While I was a windows admin I set up multiple linux boxes out of curiosity, slackware, rh5, and it was interesting and educational, but once I was done I just sort of looked at them and was like "Now What?"

Only after I attended a 3 night a week month long class did it all come together.

Well, as "an actively employed "Linux Systems Administrator" (my real job title)" I can say that I followed a different path. There just weren't any decent classes anywhere near me unless I was willing to drive several hours each way, twice a week.

It started with me getting rid of Windows on my personal workstation, and using only Linux. I bought every book I thought might help, and became an avid reader of sites like http://rootprompt.org/ and http://www.linuxtoday.com (though the latter is mostly advocacy)

It also helps to know a few other people - I've offered and received useful tips from other experienced techs.

It was about a year before I truly "got" Linux - I noticed it when I sat down at a Windows system and immediately felt "cramped" because of all the limitations on what I was doing.

The single book that helped me most get going was "Red Hat Linux Unleashed".

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this essay by Shawn Hargreaves yet. It may be five years old, but most of it is still relevant.

Yankee Group (Laura Didio)

AdTI (Kevin Brown)

Mindcraft

(Rob) Enderle Group

Forbes (Daniel Lyons)

Maybe they didn't "get away with it", maybe that did. Depends on how you define it.

Another analyst added, "they pay 5 guys to sit around and post blog entries to the internet. They don't even write their own content; they just cut and paste what other people send them. They don't even correct glaring spelling errors or correct obvious factual inconsistencies".

Furthermore, industry pundits have also revealed the truth around the questionable business practices being exposed by the lack of demand for LNUX stock. It appears that Linux's own community has begun to change their collective viewpoint.

"If linux is so great", said one, "why did they change their name from VA Linux"?

Firstly, the GPL is not a EULA. There is nothing in it which restricts usage.

A contract is not limited to mere usage. I claim that EULAs and the GPL are similar in that they both require acceptance of the license before the permission specified within are granted. It is their legal form which is similar, and not their particular enumeration of rights and non-rights.

there is no mutual agreement entered into between the parties beforehand

I agree. I personally do not believe that EULAs are bona fide contracts. Neither do I think the GPL is a contract. I stated this earlier, if you forgot. However, the form of the GPL is that of a contract. My only assertion is that *if* a EULA is a contract, *then* so is the GPL, on the basis that they use identical mechanisms to grant/impose rights and restrictions upon the user.

Other way around: the GPL GIVES YOU RIGHTS that you wouldn't otherwise have

But according to the GPL, you MUST agree to the license before getting them. To quote: "These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License." This is far more than the mere granting of permission.

Sidenote: there's also some small dispute as to certain pre-existing rights that are taken away under the FSF's interpretation of the GPL. Namely, the FSF asserts that certain classes of run-time linkage are indicative of derivation, even though copyright law says nothing to afirm this. Also the next version of the GPL will probably contain restrictions on usage to close the "web application" loophole.

Heh - thanks for the coffee out the nose.

The apology is necessary, but not sufficient. I should have added, "...and correct your non-compliance." After SCO corrects their non-compliance and apologizes to the licensors, then they'll get their rights back.

But I was referring to Richard Stallman's remarks regarding Trolltech's placement of Qt under the GPL. Most KDE developers had coffee shooting out their noses as well when the heard his statements that day. His later clarifications made it clear that he believes a formal apology is necessary to regain any lost rights under the GPL.

In case you need reminding, the RMS forgiveness statement can be found at Linux Today.

Nevermind, I'm dumb. I was thinking of this, which I read two days ago. And I should look more carefully at my search results :P

I saw one article where she was quoted several times, and made it apparent she agreed with this "evil" organization.

Besides, when you see a risk, you take precautions against it happening. That is known as risk management and it is well-known as a cost of doing business.

I don't want to hear any BS about Linux not infringing on any patents; there's so many ridiculous patents out there (see the icon of this story for an appropriate analog) that it would be good to have a buffer against another SCO coming along with a patent suit, specifically to give strategic partners (read: Microsoft) a weapon against Linux.

For many companies, it's worth the money for the ability to say to some submariner "Here's the information for my insurer. Take your case to them."

Here is an article where Bruce Perens is quoted...

What do we think of when we say "SuSE"?
I ThINK ThAT WoRDS WiTH OnE LoWERCASE LeTTER ArE CoOL!!!
---
I guess I'm not surprised they changed their name to SUSE: I can just see the pedantic sys-admins giving their pointy haired bosses a hard time for writing "Suse" or "SUSE" in an email.

Now their only problem is that there is more disagreement on how to pronounce "SUSE" than how to pronounce "linux."

Open Source-onomics: Examining some pseudo-economic arguments about Open Source
It's quite old, but I think it's still relevant. It's the article that changed my opinions about the economics of Free/Open Source software.
The author deals with most of the common arguments against OSS/FS quite effectively. A must read for Bill Gates.

Although Linux has yet to achieve wide popularity in the computer game world ("Will Linux Be Computer Games' Dark Horse OS?" Computer, Dec. 2001, pp. 161-162), it is making rapid progress toward becoming the dominant operating system in the other major entertainment arena: motion pictures. Name a motion picture from the past year or two that featured stunning animation or dazzling special effects, and chances are the film's producers used Linux-based computers to splash those graphics on the big screen.

"In short, the big news in Hollywood about Linux is it is no longer big news. Linux has won not only renderfarm servers, but the artist desktops of the top studios. It's hard to find a large studio that does not rely upon Linux as its primary animation and special effects OS, and many smaller film studios have adopted Linux, too...

"You hear a lot about Linux not being ready to work on desktops," said HP's Jeff Wood, director of product marketing for personal workstations. "Well, here we have the perfect example of how Linux is more than ready for the desktop -- hundreds of animators successfully used Linux to create a film right from their desktops."

• Linux in Hollywood: A Star Is Born
• Computer and Graphics World
• Sinbad Hears Linux's Siren Song
• TechNewsWorld: Linux in Hollywood

1. NVidia Gelato (available FIRST for Linux - Windows XP coming soon)
2. Maya
3. Tremor
4. Shake
5. Houdini
6. Renderman
7. Cinepaint

1. Pixar (although Steve Jobs is moving them to Macs)
2. ILM
3. Weta Digital
4. Dreamworks

Linux is the pre-eminent renderfarm for Hollywood and is the dominant workstation for artists. But don't trust me - there are plenty of links out there on the web.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Microsoft decided to use Macedonia in the localized version of WinXP
As part of this deal ?

Alexandar's father, Filip II conquerd the greeks
Where did you read this?
Filip II was speaking greek, believed in the greek gods, had greek education and had conquerd Athens and Spartians, not the greeks !