Slashdot Mirror

I don't know who you are, I don't know who Maureen O'Gara is, I've never heard of Sys-Con Media. And I've never cracked open the pages of LinuxWorld. And I certainly don't give a crap about your recent blog entry/whining.

And what if I wanted to read what this horrible Maureen O'Gara has to say... oh can't do that because "I won't give any more free publicity by linking to [it]". Great, thanks, I'm happy for you that slashdot is your personal pulpit.

Am I the only one that finds it incredibly aggravating when someone submits a slashdot article that just points to their own blog because of an entry they just wrote? If you have something interesting to say then people will find it and link to it themselves. It just seems to pathetic to do it yourself.

Tridge wanted access to the metadata of the source, which requires Bitkeeper. Instead of agreeing to the license and using a proprietary product, or faced with not having access to the metadata and using cvs instead, he decided to clean-room reverse engineer the client of Bitkeeper, not the Bitkeeper server.

McVoy, on the other hand, has more than just altruistic motives imho.

Some history on McVoy, and more recent on Tridge, so you can read up on the subject and adjust your post once you are informed, because your current post shows that you are talking out of your ass. Unless you have a problem with clean room reverse engineering, in which case you have a problem with Samba, OpenOffice's implementation of compatibility with MS .doc format, and about a few thousand other FOSS (and proprietary including Microsoft and Sun) apps.

In what context are you referring to operating systems in - Networking, Programing, Desktops applications. What? Surely you can be as bold as to say that Windows is better at all aspects of computing and if you are. You are one simple minded bastard like a previous post said. You ask for proof that you need a benchmark telling you that Linux is better in every measure. Of course not one OS will ever do that so what your asking for is impossible. And how do you define every measure? Does that include kernel level access and source access. You are coming out very biased so what good would a benchmark do you proofing Linux is better. Need to use it to see the truth. Linux is not perfect. Some of the desktop Applications need improving. The question is how do you dumb down applications so the everyday users can use them. Thats sorta like dumbing down an F16 so Susie rotten crotch can fly it. Heres a good article about the Samba vs 2003. http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32673_p.htm/ Another good general article is this. http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32648.htm/ But of course I am interested in what your proof is. According to your article there will be more.

In what context are you referring to operating systems in - Networking, Programing, Desktops applications. What? Surely you can be as bold as to say that Windows is better at all aspects of computing and if you are. You are one simple minded bastard like a previous post said. You ask for proof that you need a benchmark telling you that Linux is better in every measure. Of course not one OS will ever do that so what your asking for is impossible. And how do you define every measure? Does that include kernel level access and source access. You are coming out very biased so what good would a benchmark do you proofing Linux is better. Need to use it to see the truth. Linux is not perfect. Some of the desktop Applications need improving. The question is how do you dumb down applications so the everyday users can use them. Thats sorta like dumbing down an F16 so Susie rotten crotch can fly it. Heres a good article about the Samba vs 2003. http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32673_p.htm/ Another good general article is this. http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32648.htm/ But of course I am interested in what your proof is. According to your article there will be more.

Context is everything. I posted this article (written at the time of Linus' adoption of bitkeeper) from Linux World in the last BK thread. Casts the current events in an interesting (and not McVoy-friendly) light.

I had similar thoughts, but then I read this: http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32618.htm Larry has done a lot for Linux, far more than most other people on earth.

I asked McVoy if the flak he gets from zealots on the LKML is bad enough to make him do what Perens and others have suggested he might do, which is to take it all back and not allow open source developers free use of the product. McVoy thought for a few moments and we talked about other things before responding fully. "To answer your earlier question, will we ever take it away? McVoy said. "I don't think we will ever take it away, but I may very well take me away."

I agree with you about the necessity of using purly open source solutions in an open source project, however in some cases, compromises are thought necessary to make. I suppose in this case the compromise was shown to have a less than satisfactory outcome. Linux world has an interesting interview with McVoy here http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32618.htm which kind of explains a little bit more about why Linus origionally decided to use bitkeeper.

Why not, he's admitted as much.

This article details their unprocessed human waste-like activities.

And for further proof that their claims that Linux was based on Minix are nothing but baldfaced lies: Aren't liars nice? The history of how Linux got it's name (from a ftp site operator who thought freax sounded gay) is well documented elsewhere.

I'm on about the truth, and the more I see liars getting away with it, not just in this niche of computers, the more I want to do something about it. Human discussion cannot take place in an environment so hostile towards the truth.

Many here will remember ADTI's previous assertion that Linux Torvald was NOT the true father of the Linux kernel.

As Linus wrote last year:

Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. (...) I've lived a life of subterfuge, always afraid that somebody would find out the truth. (...) I can now go back to my chosen profession, the exploration of the fascinating mating dance of the common newt.

Oh yeah, every year for the last several years. Examples follow"

March 2003

July 2003

November 2004

December 2003

I should have a better look into that then.
I like supporting any native game for Linux, commercial or open-source.
Last game I was recommended was Cube .. but haven't had a chance to test-drive it yet.

...like their competitors are doing.

So essentially Microsoft is back to taking the approach that if they close their eyes tight enough, everything will be OK?

'Super-Linux' Cluster Declared Third-Fastest Computer On Earth

fastest computer system in the US

NCSA Linux Cluster Among Fastest Computers in the World

Two Linux clusters on Top 10 list of fastest computers

I agree. This is not the first time she's caught flak for putting out false claims. I'm actually surprised she still has a job.

Linus always seems to have a great sense of humor. It's probably one of the reasons why so many people like him. (Cue the overlord jokes.)

I remember a funny article about about the real fathers of linux. Also, he has lots of good quotes
His humor isn't limted to one liners becasue he has a book, too!

www.linuxworld.com has the full story: http://www.linuxworld.com/story/47749.htm/

I guess it all depends on what you're using it for. If I have to forward X, it follows that the application I am using is either not my current host or is not available to be done from a vanilla SSH session. Instances of usage include using StarOffice, Mozilla, and even XMMS. There were very legitimate reasons for using each of these applications at the time (well, except XMMS). It is noted that VNC requires fewer roundtrips than X, hence high bandwidth applications appear faster when using VNC despite having to account for an entire desktop environment.

So, no, I'm not kidding. Here's a quote from this article I found while looking for evidence to support my stance, "When using X, I always make sure to turn compression on with the -C option (Compression yes in the config file), as X is bandwidth intensive, to put it politely. With compression on and a fast cipher such as blowfish (the default for recent versions of OpenSSH), Netscape is just about usable over a ten-megabit network. Without compression, it is rather painful, and I would certainly recommend against running any complex X application over less then ten megabits."

This has been my experience.

There's a cool interview with Sam Hiser of OpenOffice.org here

you mean three arhitectures They sell the itanic team to intella http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20024/ Schwartz continues, in his now-familiar, combative blog-style: "This abandonment is indisputable evidence that HP-UX is on its way to Hewlett Packard's industry leading collection of dead architectures. We've all watched the demise of Alpha, Tru64, PA-RISC, Itanium, storage - it's now irrefutable that HP-UX is on its way to that same, very crowded boneyard. Along with the systems devoted to running it." http://www.linuxworld.com/story/47317.htm/

Linuxgram part of G2News and claims to "broken most of the key stories in Linux since it was started several years ago." Her version of "news" includes stuff like this tidbit where she breathlessly reports that some guy -- shown two pieces of code with no background or research (and under a non-disclosure agreement no reputable journalist would sign) -- declares them to be the same. That and numerous similar examples show that her "inside information" is obvious; she's sucking up to SCO by spinning the story their way. In return, they give her "inside information" -- which amounts to trivia like this; who they hired for a lawyer or how much they plan to charge for SCOSource -- so she can claim an exclusive story. This isn't journalism, it's pandering.

Kind of reminds me of the old Daily Show slogan, "When news breaks, we fix it."
Except for O'Gara it's more like, "When no news breaks, we invent some."

Eric S. Raymond has just responded to Sun's Jonathan Schwartz and he says, among other things "any time [Sun] try to use my work to justify retaining proprietary control or argue that Linux is somehow less open, that's either culpable stupidity or dishonesty and they should expect to get kicked in the teeth for it by the entire open-source community, starting with me."

I installed Xandros on my parents computer and haven't had to fix it since. I wrote about it for LinuxWorld. Yes, I know that switching OS seems like a huge step and frankly it is. But Xandros is the perfect distro for many computer users (basic office apps such as word processing, Internet, etc). The Xandros Deluxe edition includes Codeweavers CrossOver too so installation of things like Quicken and full version of Microsoft Office are possible, though Xandros includes OpenOffice.

It seems as though most Windows users that I've talked to don't care about the *name* of the program so much as they care about it just *working* and being compatible. OpenOffice is a great example of this. Show someone that they can read their old Word docs and that they can even save directly to PDF and they'll be an OpenOffice user. Yes, yes, yes. I know that there are things that OOo can't do but many (most?) users won't ever encounter those issues. Likewise, show someone that they can get their work done in much the same way and don't have to settle for IE's constant string of security holes, even post SP2, and Windows' poor performance and constant, never-ending critical updates and they'll be a Linux (and/or Xandros) user.

Since I installed Xandros on my parents computer I don't have to worry about my parents getting the spyware/adware/malware du jour or about the OS crashing for no good reason. They don't have to worry about clicking something they shouldn't or about their computer being "down" when they get yet another virus. I chose Xandros as an upgrade from XP Pro on their computer and it helped everyone concerned.

If I ever had to do tech support, which I'm just guessing I will at some point, Xandros is based on Debian which makes my life easier. At least I won't find myself in the position of having to tech support Outlook Express, a program I've never used, or any of the other disappointing, unconfigurable, security-hole laden programs that come from Microsoft.

Nobody ever knows who built open-source software..
I strongly suggest Mr.Ballmer to read this. This will hopefully give him a clue..

It's hard to sympathize with any company whose actions have been so underhanded . They ruined their own business a long time ago, and their current legal manuevering is at best an ugly money grab.

But it seems the impact on Linux will be, at worst, a re-write of any SCO-owned code, should any be found.

FOSS will never die.

oh this is so ironic... posting a link to a Maureen O'Gara article...

And here's some more incontrovertible LinuxWorld.com evidence of being a Microsoft shill, perhaps? "Dear Bill Gates, As Evil Geniuses Rate, You Have a Way to Go..." - by the magazine's senior editor James Turner.

Linuxworld is an anti linux site. That should be obvious to anybody who has been there more then once. Just look at the ads for god's sake.

Are we looking at the same website? I will admit that I've never been to linuxworld before, but I just went there now, and I saw:

3 advertisements: one by novell advocating a linux strategy for your business, one for "Windows Server System", and one for oracle about a database that's "cheaper than MS SQL".

Some article headlines seem to be "Rumors of Microsoft's Demise Are Premature...But Not Unthinkable", and "Ballmer Windows/Linux E-Mail Relies on Previously-Debunked TCO Studies". Those headlines seem to be a bit slanted, if not pro-linux, then definitely anti-microsoft.

Am I missing something? (perhaps I've been trolled...)

I don't expect they'll publish any more of Ms. O'Gara's articles. But all the other sites owned by their parent will continue to do so. So the ad revenue will flow.

The LinuxWorld editors tried to apologize, blaming it on the LinuxBusinessWeek editors and mentioning that several LinuxWorld editors threatened to resign in protest. Since they're both owned by SYS-CON, both infact running basically the same site, they're expected to cross publish certain articles.

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46821.htm

The LinuxBusinessWeek editors on the other hand say they disagree with the LinuxWorld editors about the quality of the article, and that LinuxBusinessWeek stands by that article and look forward to publishing more of Maureen's works. But "We will no longer provide news content to LinuxWorld Magazine's accompanying Web site."

http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/46854.htm

So the ad revenue will still flow to the FUD flingers (parent company), but if the LinuxWorld editors have their way the FUD will stop appearing on LinuxWorld, or they'll resign, or they'll get raises.

Links to the readable versions of the articles that have them:
Rumors of Microsoft's Demise Are Premature...But Not Unthinkable
Linux to turn Windows into niche player

...discussed at LinuxWorld yesterday is a far better read than Ballmer's screed.

here

My wife runs Windows 98 on her little 300mhz computer and it basically does what she needs - some photo editing, writing of documents, spreadsheets, e-mail, and Web surfing. ...

1. Maureen is Lesbian... I live on the west coast (Vancouver), so that's not only not hard to swallow -- It seems entirely feasable.
2. She's in a polyamorous relationship. Given that she likes supporting SCO, who hail from Utah, This too, doesn't strike me as entirely unreasonable. (yes, I know that most people in Utah only have one spouse, but Polygamy is at least more infamous there than anywhere else).
3. She's fobbing off someone else's as her own and didn't even botheer to do the most minimal of editing before posting it.
4. Personally, I'd say that #3 is the most disturbing of the three.

5. I guess we could add #4, that she's really a transgendered "he", but I'd say you could swallow that inside of #1.

I'm not quite sure I can follow this, but see
this story by Maureen O'Gara. Hmmm, maybe they both live in the Netherlands.

It seems even Maureen O'Gara thinks the article was not true:
( http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46800_f.htm)

"Maureen O'Gara commented on 23 October 2004:

* I'm really sorry everyone. I want you all to know that this was really intended as a satire piece, but the editors didn't realise and have published it as fact.

It was really hard to keep a straight face while writing it, and I was obviously hoping for the same reaction from my readers.

Oh, the ads here are satire too. Have you read the M$ TCO one? It's a hoot!"

So I think there is nothing to see here.

Clearcut case of failing journalistic integrity.

Let LinuxWorld know what you think of the journalistic integrity of their writer.

Make it polite, short, and to the point.

Here is an example of why I maintain that LinuxWorld is dangerous.

They have posted what is obviously a bogus critical secrurity bulletin purportedly from Red Hat, linking to a "patch" located at stanford.edu.

Since when does RH deliver errata via random sites. More likely is that this is an attempt to compromise systems.

And the stars at LinuxWorld exercised no editorial judgement at all, no common sense; they just ran it.

If I were trying to undermine Linux, this is exactly the kind of thing I would do.

Who is behind LinuxWorld? Why the ridiculous pro-SCO equivocation and anti-IBM attacks? Regardless of how you feel about IBM, how can anybody else associated with the software industry support a company that has made IP-lawsuits its first and only business priority?

Alright, then, I won't say IBM. I'll say SGI instead. A single Linux kernel on 256 CPUs? Yep, and 512 by the end of the year, apparently. You can't go beyond 144 CPUs on anything Sun currently sell. Linux may not have the high end sewn up yet, but SSI on big iron is no longer just a pipe dream. Just playing devil's advocate...

MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop

That's not what Ballmer has been saying recently.

Maureen O'Gara has a good piece on this at LinuxWorld combatively titled "Microsoft Gored by Fat Cow"

Among other things she writes:

The sexy WinFS storage system, which is supposed to unify the base OS file system and the file stores in many applications, is a reprise of the spoiled old Cairo project that Microsoft broke its horns on trying to develop years ago. In Cairo's case the file system was dubbed OFS, short for Object File System.

To extricate itself from its habitual scheduling pickle, Microsoft has reportedly been "componentizing" its technology so that there are no dependencies and so that things can stand on their own, so to speak, buying it the breathing space it needs - as it does now - to get on with rebuilding its operating system from the ground up.

Microsoft of course has never confirmed that this what it's doing, but Gartner has long thought that was what it was up to and now it appears that Gartner was right because Microsoft is now saying that it will deliver WinFS "after the Longhorn release" and that Longhorn's two other special, so-called WinFX technologies, the new Avalon presentation engine and the new Indigo web services communications subsystem, will be made available for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003

Maybe she has a point. That last part I mean?

Maureen O'Gara doesn't seem to care for Googlers Page and Brin and says that they've gotten their "comeuppance" - I wouldn't mind a billion-dollar comeuppance myself come to think of it. It's an interesting article though.

It's not even secret. AdTI & Linus colaberated on the research that revealed that Santa was the real author of Linux

Ah, SCO, SCO, SCO. This latest prank... Where to begin to unravel the latest brainstorm, the claim that ELF belongs to them, that Linux is using it illegally, and that it's the mortar holding the entire kernel together? I am smiling just typing this.

Here is what the ELF story is about, according to a Linuxworld article by Maureen O'Gara:

"In 1995, the year Novell sold Unix to the Santa Cruz Operation, an industry group calling itself the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard and to popularize it and streamline PC software development granted users a 'non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license' to the stuff, effectively putting it in the public domain, SCO says.

"SCOsource chief Chris Sontag, the SCO VP in charge of the company's hate-inducing IP push, claims TISC, which folded immediately after the spec was published, exceeded its rights even though both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee."

OK. ELF. Here we go. After all the research we have done, here are the conclusions I reach. First, ELF isn't mortar. It's not even in the kernel. It's interface stuff. It's not the only interface one might use, and in fact it replaced a prior interface, so it isn't essential for Linux to keep breathing and life to go on. It'd be annoying but not at all impossible to replace it.

Second, if TISC overstepped its authority, that is between SCO and SCO, because oldSCO was involved, oldSCO being a member of TISC.

Third, I don't believe they own it.

Fourth, Linux is not unique in using ELF.

Fifth, this is getting silly.

Let me explain, please, how I reached those conclusions.

Here's what the TISC document [PDF], regarding ELF version 1.2, told the world they were intending and what the world could do with ELF:

"This Executable and Linking Format Specification, Version 1.2, is the result of the work of the Tool Interface Standards (TIS) Committee--an association of members of the microcomputer industry formed to work toward standardization of the software interfaces visible to development tools for 32-bit Intel Architecture operating environments.

"Such interfaces include object module formats, executable file formats, and debug record information and formats. The goal of the committee is to help streamline the software development process throughout the microcomputer industry, currently concentrating on 32-bit operating environments. To that end, the committee has developed specifications--some for file formats that are portable across leading industry operating systems, and others describing formats for 32-bit Windows * operating systems. Originally distributed collectively as the TIS Portable Formats Specifications Version 1.1, these specifications are now separated and distributed individually.

"TIS Committee members include representatives from Absoft, Autodesk, Borland International Corporation, IBM Corporation, Intel Corporation, Lahey, Lotus Corporation, MetaWare Corporation, Microtec Research, Microsoft Corporation, Novell Corporation, The Santa Cruz Operation, and WATCOM International Corporation. PharLap Software Incorporated and Symantec Corporation also participated in the specification definition efforts. This specification like the others in the TIS collection of specifications is based on existing, proven formats in keeping with the TIS Committee's goal to adopt, and when necessary, extend existing standards rather than invent new ones.

"About ELF: Executable and Linking Format The Executable and Linking Format was originally developed and published by UNIX System Laboratories (USL) as part of the Application Binary Interface (ABI). The Tool Interface Standards committee (TIS) has selected the evolving ELF standard as a portable ob

* Yes I know, Linux is only the kernel, please educate me how this makes sense... or is there some other init than /sbin/init?

on April 15 2004, Sun's James Gosling, in response to this article and some "slashdot flamage" from the same author, blogged in More on Sun & Microsoft

My last blog entry stirred up a lot of commentary and flamage (and some of the flamage was entertainingly wild: I love the Internet!). Reading through it, it's clear that there's still confusion about the meaning of our "collaboration" agreement with Microsoft.

While it is true that as a part of it we did sign up for Microsoft's Communications Protocol Program that is a part of the US v. Microsoft case, our full agreement both modifies and expands on it to give us a much more broad and useful agreement. It is important to understand that in no way does this lock Sun or Sun customers into interoperating with any Microsoft system on Microsoft's strict terms. Right now, most of our interoperability is achieved through reverse-engineering. We have the option, entirely at our discretion, to access Microsoft's specifications through the collaboration agreement. But before we do so, on a case-by-case basis, we will do an analysis of the business case for the entanglements that such access implies (principally confidentiality and royalties). Right now, the vast majority of the software that we (Sun) produce has free and open specifications and we provide the implementations of a large and growing fraction of it as open source. We are not going to slow down our involvement in the open source community. Right now we have launched no projects that will access any Microsoft specifications under the agreement - we simply have the option to, if we decide that the benefits outweigh the costs.

I can't find anything what even remotely suggests that novell has surpassed other big vendors. Even Linux world is quoted as stating that Debian, Mandrakesoft, Red Hat, and SUSE are the top four vendors as of April 4th of this year. Here is that link Linux and Security: Forrester Report Flawed, Say Four Top Vendors. Perhaps you could provide a link to support your ridiculous claim that novell is that good at anything anymore?

I thought Dell said they had nothing to do with the VAR that was loading Linspire and selling the PCs in Europe other than selling them machines?

Story Here