Slashdot Mirror

Courtesy Linux Weekly News. Samba 2.0 has been released. Samba is a fully Y2K-compliant and supported "file and print server suite" for Linux, and an often cited free software success story (it is GPL). 2.0 adds the ability to "integrate seamlessly into an existing Windows NT domain". See the press release (with an amazing benchmark relult at the head), or the Samba project home page for more info.

Lars Larsen writes "Linux Weekly News has a nice Linux timeline for 1998. " The best comment is the little block of Jesse Berst quotes his opinions changing from 'Linux Will Never go Mainstream' to 'I've always said that Linux could be a serious Challanger'

As most of you know, Linux Weekly News issue is out. One thing that I truly liked there is the Linux 1998 timeline (and specially the Jesse Berst part). Although this timeline is not full (and there is some stuff missing - anyone want to help him to fill it?) I think it should be definetly a keeper for the Linux enthusiastic :)

As most of you know, Linux Weekly News issue is out. One thing that I truly liked there is the Linux 1998 timeline (and specially the Jesse Berst part). Although this timeline is not full (and there is some stuff missing - anyone want to help him to fill it?) I think it should be definetly a keeper for the Linux enthusiastic :)

Two stories have cropped up this week about IBM and patent-issues. The first is from Greg Aharonian of the Internet Patent News Service who discusses the implications of using a Open Source product which includes IBM patents given IBM's history of vigorously defending its patents even when they are included in open protocols. The second is from ZD Net which claims IBM would like to see the Linux license changed to take more patent issues into account, so that it feels legally protected if it provides 24x7 support and tweaks the code. The article concludes by listing potential new Linux ports. The GPL does discuss patents (see the GPL preamble for explanation). somebody else and Linux Weekly News contributed links. update The Kernel mailing list has some debate on this, ranging from people who would like to work something out with IBM (so that the free software community can use arithmetic compression, and other IBM patents for free), to people who argue that if IBM does not want to play by our rules (freedom), it should go make its money somewhere else. A list of patents currently restricting us as well as a prediction of the demise of the patent system were posted.

Two stories have cropped up this week about IBM and patent-issues. The first is from Greg Aharonian of the Internet Patent News Service who discusses the implications of using a Open Source product which includes IBM patents given IBM's history of vigorously defending its patents even when they are included in open protocols. The second is from ZD Net which claims IBM would like to see the Linux license changed to take more patent issues into account, so that it feels legally protected if it provides 24x7 support and tweaks the code. The article concludes by listing potential new Linux ports. The GPL does discuss patents (see the GPL preamble for explanation). somebody else and Linux Weekly News contributed links. update The Kernel mailing list has some debate on this, ranging from people who would like to work something out with IBM (so that the free software community can use arithmetic compression, and other IBM patents for free), to people who argue that if IBM does not want to play by our rules (freedom), it should go make its money somewhere else. A list of patents currently restricting us as well as a prediction of the demise of the patent system were posted.

ikky writes "This problably falls into the "We've-had-enough-of-Java-in-the-past-few-days", but here we go anyways. Seems like SUN has decided that the new JDK (officially launched today) will be named Java 2. Also the link provides some insight into SUN's OSS plans for Java. Great news for OSS! And it comes just after the Jikes release... " As an aside, thanks to Jason Y. Sproul for our spiffy new Java Icon. We've been running with that crappy blob thing ever since that whole Invaders/Java thing quite some time ago. Update! S: Here's Tim O'reilly's (and others) reaction(s) to the opening (but not open-sourcing) of Java.

Linux Weekly News Daily is reporting that many key Harmony developers no longer see a need to code Harmony. Meanwhile, others take exception to the level of control over the future development of Linux that the QPL could give Troll Tech. Another issue is the complexity of managing one or two years worth of patch files in the right order, and what to do when a new release of Qt is made. It seems some new blood could help the Harmony Project, which after all has some different goals to Qt.

Linux Weekly News Daily is reporting that many key Harmony developers no longer see a need to code Harmony. Meanwhile, others take exception to the level of control over the future development of Linux that the QPL could give Troll Tech. Another issue is the complexity of managing one or two years worth of patch files in the right order, and what to do when a new release of Qt is made. It seems some new blood could help the Harmony Project, which after all has some different goals to Qt.

Release 0.01 of OpenBIOS is now available. It currently only works on Intel 430HX/VX/TX chipsets. Why bother? Well it'd be nice to have the kernel in ROM on a 4Mbit flashrom device for handheld computers.

LWN has an article by Bruce Perens outlining a possible attack on Open Source: the Trojan Horse. The idea is that malicious patches could be contributed to a program from an unworthy source, later to be exploited. Do you think this is an issue?

LWN has an article by Bruce Perens outlining a possible attack on Open Source: the Trojan Horse. The idea is that malicious patches could be contributed to a program from an unworthy source, later to be exploited. Do you think this is an issue?

The German Linux Organisation Linux Verband is reporting on recent Linux successes: 20 percent of Siemens PC-workstation customers are now buying with Linux pre-installed. The leader of Mercedes' car-electronics prototype development team reports he is very satisfied with the 30 Siemens workstations purchased so far, and that they are buying 10 more. In the previous 7 years they had run Windows workstations, which required constant supervision from a dedicated employee. Moreover the German Police in Stuttgart are using Linux as a server because of its high reliability. On the french side of things, a new Slashdot derivative is up and running. They are still under construction and will be posting article-sources soon. Links courtesy of LWD and LT. Translations can be provided by Babelfish".

Here's an article found on LWN from Dave Winer: many Windows developers would benefit from a stronger Linux platform, so the free software community should not lump all Windows programmers with Microsoft.

Constantine Vetoshev writes "Sun claims that their WorkShop C/C++ compiler family outperforms GNU tools (egcs) on the SPARC architecture. They cite a ~30% performance gain on certain benchmarks... Any /. readers out there that have experience with the SPARC architecture and have some real stories to tell about Sun development tools versus GNU software?" S: Some of the critique seems unjustified (personally, I prefer tools that do not require me to find my mouse) and does not acknowledge scripts, programmable editors, DDD, etc. However any new ways of improving performance are of interest. It appears Sun's technology relies on run-time profiling and enabling the compiler to use the profiling results -- just like the GNU Rope project improves memory organization using profiling data. It would not be surprising if Workshop had some lead since it is SPARC-specific while egcs isn't: for instance AFAIK egcs does not take cache-architecture into account, while Workshop should. But can anyone tell us the increases of performance they have observed when using profiling information.

Found in LWN. Apparently, Microsoft has begun its dissection of the open source community. Eric Raymond has been leaked an internal Microsoft memo regarding open source software. Quite the interesting read. Turns out they even mention Slashdot. This could be beneficial to us in another way, as well: it points out, in no uncertain words, our deficiencies. Consider it the master TODO list, guys. Update!(S) Vorx writes "ZDNet just posted an article about the MS Halloween document. They mention ESR and his role in publicizing it. Seems like more attention is being paid to this article now, maybe some PHB's will start to wonder about MS and Fear :)" Update! (S) David Rysdam wrote to tell us: "I wrote to ESR myself and told him about the brouhaha over here at Slashdot over the "Halloween Paper". I explained that many thought it was a hoax perpetrated on or by him, but that I thought even if he was the hoaxster I didn't believe he'd keep up an outright lie. So I asked him straight: "To the best of your knowledge, is this memo what it purports to be: a leaked, internal, MS communication?" He responded: "Absolutely. I believe it is authentic." So I think we can drop the "ESR is lying" hypothesis." Also, Paul Victor Novarese has mirrored the Halloween Document (with ESR's permission).

Red Hat Linux Secure Web Server 2.0 won the Best Of Show Award at Networld+Interop '98 Atlanta today, according to the editors of Data Communications and LAN Times. Link courtesy of LWN

Pacific HiTech is to enter the US market. Currently it has has more than 50 percent of the Japanese Linux market, making it the second largest Linux distribution worldwide. Interestingly Pacific HiTech has been successful in the chip corporate market, and includes as customers the Japanese Broadcasting Corp., HSBC Securities Japan Ltd., and the Otsuka Shokai group, one of Japan's largest office supplies and systems integration firms. I'm also guessing that TurboLinux 3.0 is to be released soon. Any Japanese capable readers care to confirm? The first link was found in LWN.

Sun has licensed JDK 1.2 and JCK 1.2 to the Linux porting team, bringing the Linux porting team on an equal footing with all of the other commerical source licensees of the JDK, in terms of being able to validate and certify that the Linux port is 100% Java Compatible (which apparently the Microsoft JDK still isn't). It seems like Sun is finally becoming more pro-active in this area.

Microsoft is not going to wait for the outcome of its trial with the DOJ before attacking Linux. The battle scene is France, where Microsoft's new (expendable?) regional director Marc Chardon has just issued an open letter to his clients. Click below to read the translation of the Linux-section (it's in French) and some commentary. The new director of Microsoft France (MF) has just issued an open letter to his clients. Most of the letter says essentially "We're right. Critics aren't. Millions of people use our products." and other fascinating insights. However it does contain two interesting revelations: Microsoft's OS is an integral part of your PC, and Linux is of very limited interest to anyone but fringe groups (students and researchers).

As previously reported, it is illegal in the EU to tie the sale of a product with another in the EU. However Microsoft France (MF) argues that because a computer can be argued non-functional without an operating system (or a hard-drive), what is being sold is a single product, not two. A little later, MF's director contradicts himself by stating that "assemblers" (basically small computing shops that will assemble a computer from standard components according to your desires) will sell you a computer without an OS -- is that a broken computer? Indeed, since the same letter claims there are more OS's for PCs than any other computer, we must be dealing with a product tied to another precisely because no other OS is sold (according to the letter) with a computer.

Further down, you'll see a whole section devoted to Linux. While today Microsoft's lawyers declared Linux to be developed by a single person, MF's director claims it to be a movement. I've translated the rest of what he had to say about Linux since it's interesting...

"It would seem that Linux does not satisfy the requirements of most companies, let alone the general public.

Linux presents limits that will slow down its widespread distribution, particularly in companies and the general public

In terms of the system's stability, Linux has problems of general coordination, and one feels strongly the lack of a project leader. Linus Torvald ( S: Microsoft can't spell!) left university last year to join a Californian company. The development of Linux has since considerably slowed down. Similarly, the maintenance of Linux' functionality depends on the mobilization of its teams. Thus, certain of its functions have not been updated in the last two years.

The installation of Linux is delicate. For optimal system performance, each version must be tuned on each computer at each installation, by a competent computer-technician. Setting it up and its administration are therefore not within the reach of a computer-technician used to more friendly operating systems, let alone basic users. Using Linux is complex, its programs generally take text commands.

Finally most Linux application software has limited functionality. Word processors rarely have functionality common on today's PC or Macintosh: dynamic spelling correction, graphic input of tables, integration of imported graphics. Most Linux word processors bear more resemblance to Microsoft Write written in 1985.

Linux' advantages of zero-cost and open source are not relevant criteria for most users.

The zero-cost of Linux is a non decisive advantage: the cost of an OS is minor in comparison to the other costs of a company. The price of the OS is only one of the elements of computers in companies. Putting a traditional OS into place costs many times the price of the OS itself, and the same goes for the creation of an application program and its maintenance. So, by installing Linux, one saves the cost of the OS, but one increases the cost of installation, and one takes risks for the maintenance of the applications and the system itself.

If certain people consider the permanent availability of source code to be an absolute guaranty of independence from software editors, we fail to see the benefit for a company or a person to have access to the source of his OS.

However, the distribution of the OS source code is very useful for students and researchers, to understand the inner-workings of the OS and eventually to change it. Linux will therefore probably stay for a long time a good subject of study for computer-scientist, rather than an OS destined for widespread distribution. "

I must apologize for any mistakes in my translation. Use babelfish to get an alternative translation. I'm open to any corrections. update! Linux Weekly News has just published a de-babelfished translation of the whole letter.

S: This letter obviously contains many "inaccuracies":

If I buy a car, is the fuel a separate product or not? What about electricity? Computers are non-functional without it. I hope the EU lawyers will notice this wriggling.

His attacks on Linus stating that Linux development has slowed down are not credible with the inflow of new developers and the number of ports now in the standard kernel. The letter very much ignores the fact that Transmeta lets Linus hack on Linux during office hours and has other employees that contribute, underplays Red Hat employing kernel developers, and completely ignores the current tidal surge of major corporations towards Linux: Intel, Compaq, Oracle, Sun, to name but a few.

Anyone who has had to install Windows from scratch, as I do every 3-6 months when it has corrupted its hard-drive beyond repair at work, knows that installing Windows is a royal pain. It takes over an hour, requires minding (yes... I'm just here to click OK)... Linux takes me 20 minutes on an 100 Mhz system. The only argument here is: when Windows is pre-installed (i.e. when you buy your machine) it's easier than it is to install Linux. Duh!

I, and many others don't view GUI's as necessarily friendly. Until they are a substitute for true understanding, I prefer to have control over my system and to be able to repair it. The usual answer for Windows to reinstall everything, and then try eliminating various components until you've found the "culprit". The same applies for source code. Funny that the latest C'T has devoted 19 pages to "Hacks & Bugs & Workarounds: Large Projects with Word, and how one survives them". To me, and many others, this is an unacceptable hit on my productivity.

Indeed, the whole notion that Linux is too hard for the average user is nonsense to me. I gave my mother a Linux box -- I'm living 8 timezones away so I cannot help her fix an unreliable OS. She cannot rely on computer-savvy neighbours either, since she's in a very rural area. But, with Linux as her first computer, she is happy using it laying ridicule on Microsoft's claims about the difficulties that the average layman will experience.

Complaints about Word processors are unfair since most Windows word-processors are also not very advanced. Percentage-wise (if you count all the free, shareware, and old ones), I expect Windows/DOS have a worse ratio. Only a few products provide the features Marc discusses. Similarly, on Linux, we have WordPerfect 7 (hey Corel, port WordPerfect 8!), Applixware, and StarOffice (which I sometimes use), Angoss, Dtop, and Axene's Xclamation, On the free front we have Emacs which is also used by a very large number of people under NT and which will soon have a WYSIWYG interface, Thot, EZ, Papyrus, Cicero, Doc, Maxwell, and new promising upstarts such as Glue. And let's not forget TeX: I and my fellow PhD students wrote their theses in it because it copes well with 700 page documents. Most academic papers must be written, and many books are written in it. It also accepts any graphics as encapsulated postscript. TeX is still the only format which is guaranteed to come out looking the same on any computer, and still looks better to me and many others than the output of any other product. As to dynamic spell-checking, I turn it off: I think, I write, I reread, I spell-check. Dynamic spell-checking just breaks the flow of my thoughts.

The attack on zero-cost software is a pretty obvious diversion, and tries to draw the reader's attention away from the fact people use Linux because of its stability and features rather than its cost.

Finally, Microsoft's attempt to make academics and students irrelevant is interesting, since they are the ones pushing Linux, but also very dangerous. France values intelligence and high education more than most other societies, as Marc Chardon's own CV shows.

So what do you think of all this?

I'd like to thank A Dark Elf, Jacky Liu, and Linux Weekly News Daily for some of the material I used here.

Microsoft is not going to wait for the outcome of its trial with the DOJ before attacking Linux. The battle scene is France, where Microsoft's new (expendable?) regional director Marc Chardon has just issued an open letter to his clients. Click below to read the translation of the Linux-section (it's in French) and some commentary. The new director of Microsoft France (MF) has just issued an open letter to his clients. Most of the letter says essentially "We're right. Critics aren't. Millions of people use our products." and other fascinating insights. However it does contain two interesting revelations: Microsoft's OS is an integral part of your PC, and Linux is of very limited interest to anyone but fringe groups (students and researchers).

As previously reported, it is illegal in the EU to tie the sale of a product with another in the EU. However Microsoft France (MF) argues that because a computer can be argued non-functional without an operating system (or a hard-drive), what is being sold is a single product, not two. A little later, MF's director contradicts himself by stating that "assemblers" (basically small computing shops that will assemble a computer from standard components according to your desires) will sell you a computer without an OS -- is that a broken computer? Indeed, since the same letter claims there are more OS's for PCs than any other computer, we must be dealing with a product tied to another precisely because no other OS is sold (according to the letter) with a computer.

Further down, you'll see a whole section devoted to Linux. While today Microsoft's lawyers declared Linux to be developed by a single person, MF's director claims it to be a movement. I've translated the rest of what he had to say about Linux since it's interesting...

"It would seem that Linux does not satisfy the requirements of most companies, let alone the general public.

Linux presents limits that will slow down its widespread distribution, particularly in companies and the general public

In terms of the system's stability, Linux has problems of general coordination, and one feels strongly the lack of a project leader. Linus Torvald ( S: Microsoft can't spell!) left university last year to join a Californian company. The development of Linux has since considerably slowed down. Similarly, the maintenance of Linux' functionality depends on the mobilization of its teams. Thus, certain of its functions have not been updated in the last two years.

The installation of Linux is delicate. For optimal system performance, each version must be tuned on each computer at each installation, by a competent computer-technician. Setting it up and its administration are therefore not within the reach of a computer-technician used to more friendly operating systems, let alone basic users. Using Linux is complex, its programs generally take text commands.

Finally most Linux application software has limited functionality. Word processors rarely have functionality common on today's PC or Macintosh: dynamic spelling correction, graphic input of tables, integration of imported graphics. Most Linux word processors bear more resemblance to Microsoft Write written in 1985.

Linux' advantages of zero-cost and open source are not relevant criteria for most users.

The zero-cost of Linux is a non decisive advantage: the cost of an OS is minor in comparison to the other costs of a company. The price of the OS is only one of the elements of computers in companies. Putting a traditional OS into place costs many times the price of the OS itself, and the same goes for the creation of an application program and its maintenance. So, by installing Linux, one saves the cost of the OS, but one increases the cost of installation, and one takes risks for the maintenance of the applications and the system itself.

If certain people consider the permanent availability of source code to be an absolute guaranty of independence from software editors, we fail to see the benefit for a company or a person to have access to the source of his OS.

However, the distribution of the OS source code is very useful for students and researchers, to understand the inner-workings of the OS and eventually to change it. Linux will therefore probably stay for a long time a good subject of study for computer-scientist, rather than an OS destined for widespread distribution. "

I must apologize for any mistakes in my translation. Use babelfish to get an alternative translation. I'm open to any corrections. update! Linux Weekly News has just published a de-babelfished translation of the whole letter.

S: This letter obviously contains many "inaccuracies":

If I buy a car, is the fuel a separate product or not? What about electricity? Computers are non-functional without it. I hope the EU lawyers will notice this wriggling.

His attacks on Linus stating that Linux development has slowed down are not credible with the inflow of new developers and the number of ports now in the standard kernel. The letter very much ignores the fact that Transmeta lets Linus hack on Linux during office hours and has other employees that contribute, underplays Red Hat employing kernel developers, and completely ignores the current tidal surge of major corporations towards Linux: Intel, Compaq, Oracle, Sun, to name but a few.

Anyone who has had to install Windows from scratch, as I do every 3-6 months when it has corrupted its hard-drive beyond repair at work, knows that installing Windows is a royal pain. It takes over an hour, requires minding (yes... I'm just here to click OK)... Linux takes me 20 minutes on an 100 Mhz system. The only argument here is: when Windows is pre-installed (i.e. when you buy your machine) it's easier than it is to install Linux. Duh!

I, and many others don't view GUI's as necessarily friendly. Until they are a substitute for true understanding, I prefer to have control over my system and to be able to repair it. The usual answer for Windows to reinstall everything, and then try eliminating various components until you've found the "culprit". The same applies for source code. Funny that the latest C'T has devoted 19 pages to "Hacks & Bugs & Workarounds: Large Projects with Word, and how one survives them". To me, and many others, this is an unacceptable hit on my productivity.

Indeed, the whole notion that Linux is too hard for the average user is nonsense to me. I gave my mother a Linux box -- I'm living 8 timezones away so I cannot help her fix an unreliable OS. She cannot rely on computer-savvy neighbours either, since she's in a very rural area. But, with Linux as her first computer, she is happy using it laying ridicule on Microsoft's claims about the difficulties that the average layman will experience.

Complaints about Word processors are unfair since most Windows word-processors are also not very advanced. Percentage-wise (if you count all the free, shareware, and old ones), I expect Windows/DOS have a worse ratio. Only a few products provide the features Marc discusses. Similarly, on Linux, we have WordPerfect 7 (hey Corel, port WordPerfect 8!), Applixware, and StarOffice (which I sometimes use), Angoss, Dtop, and Axene's Xclamation, On the free front we have Emacs which is also used by a very large number of people under NT and which will soon have a WYSIWYG interface, Thot, EZ, Papyrus, Cicero, Doc, Maxwell, and new promising upstarts such as Glue. And let's not forget TeX: I and my fellow PhD students wrote their theses in it because it copes well with 700 page documents. Most academic papers must be written, and many books are written in it. It also accepts any graphics as encapsulated postscript. TeX is still the only format which is guaranteed to come out looking the same on any computer, and still looks better to me and many others than the output of any other product. As to dynamic spell-checking, I turn it off: I think, I write, I reread, I spell-check. Dynamic spell-checking just breaks the flow of my thoughts.

The attack on zero-cost software is a pretty obvious diversion, and tries to draw the reader's attention away from the fact people use Linux because of its stability and features rather than its cost.

Finally, Microsoft's attempt to make academics and students irrelevant is interesting, since they are the ones pushing Linux, but also very dangerous. France values intelligence and high education more than most other societies, as Marc Chardon's own CV shows.

So what do you think of all this?

I'd like to thank A Dark Elf, Jacky Liu, and Linux Weekly News Daily for some of the material I used here.

Larry McVoy has quit his job to help Linus scale better: Recently Linus has been getting too many patches (understandable now that Linux is on so many architectures) and is having difficulty keeping up. Linux Weekly News has the gory details. The new system will enable a hierarchy of more and more trusted Linux developers to filter/improve patches before they reach Linus himself without resorting to the committee style approach that has led to the *BSDs splitting up. Given that Larry has lost quite a bit of money so far developing this software the license has yet to be finalized. However he is well qualified to do this having written the source control system used at Sun. Linus is willing to try it out.

Larry McVoy has quit his job to help Linus scale better: Recently Linus has been getting too many patches (understandable now that Linux is on so many architectures) and is having difficulty keeping up. Linux Weekly News has the gory details. The new system will enable a hierarchy of more and more trusted Linux developers to filter/improve patches before they reach Linus himself without resorting to the committee style approach that has led to the *BSDs splitting up. Given that Larry has lost quite a bit of money so far developing this software the license has yet to be finalized. However he is well qualified to do this having written the source control system used at Sun. Linus is willing to try it out.

Larry McVoy has quit his job to help Linus scale better: Recently Linus has been getting too many patches (understandable now that Linux is on so many architectures) and is having difficulty keeping up. Linux Weekly News has the gory details. The new system will enable a hierarchy of more and more trusted Linux developers to filter/improve patches before they reach Linus himself without resorting to the committee style approach that has led to the *BSDs splitting up. Given that Larry has lost quite a bit of money so far developing this software the license has yet to be finalized. However he is well qualified to do this having written the source control system used at Sun. Linus is willing to try it out.

Linux Weekly News Daily refers to a nice informative article in the Irish Times about how Free Unixes (Linux and FreeBSD) are used at Trinity College (Dublin).

HP's newest PDA will include a StrongARM 1100 running at 190Mhz and a StrongARM 1101 chipset. Interestingly, the chipset and the CPU come to a total cost of $51, similar to the price of an x86 combination. This shows that StrongARM can compete on performance/power consumption and not just price, despite its percieved disadvantage of not running x86 software. HP has also licensed the ARM 7 core directly from ARM suggesting that it will develop its own ARM variants. All this is good news for Corel and Acorn RISC PCs, and a possible indication that x86 may not spearhead the lowcost appliance market. Indeed, Jim Pick's speculation appears a plausible scenario, with the exception that Microsoft has another trick up its sleeve: embedded NT.

This week's Linux Weekly News' lead article discusses the possible impact on independent VARs if Robert Young's prediction that 6 of the 10 major PC manufacturers will start distributing Linux turns out true. An article in PC Week lists likely contenders to be Gateway (has been doing certification tests with Linux for six months, and most likely will install Linux across its enterprise server line next year, said Ray Hebert, senior manager of servers), IBM, Dell, Hitachi, Toshiba, Compaq and HP which have all made some sort of positive noise about Linux...

Not to be outdone, Caldera will be receiving investments from as yet unspecified companies, Ransom Lowe has been saying. Ed: I'd like to see some other companies/organisations from around the world getting backing (think Suse, Kheops, DLD, Debian Japan etc). Anyone from Siemens, Philips, Fujitsu, NEC, Sony listening? Thanks to Linux Weekly News Daily for the reference.

Redhat has now announced that Intel, Netscape, Greylock and Benchmark Partners have invested in it. Intel wants to target ISPs with their Linux strategy. Intel will also be joining Linux International. It will be interesting to see in which way Red Hat will react to UDI given the discussion about it on the kernel list, summarized by Linux Weekly News. (updated) Further info at news.com which is sporting Tux today.

Microsoft expects Windows to have competition from Linux, according to its annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission: "Over the past year the Linux operating system has gained increasing acceptance, and leading software developers such as Oracle and Corel have announced that they will develop applications that run on Linux." Indeed, the first salvo of the war has perhaps been launched with the recent changes to the smb encryption defaults making Samba more difficult for newbie system administrators to setup (section 8 of the current samba-bugs FAQ) Thanks to Oxymoron ;-) for the second reference.

Mark Wielaard writes "Lat week the Linux Weekly News had an editorial on "How do we come to terms with Richard M. Stallman?". This week a lot of readers wrote letters to the editor about this matter. I for one think it is a good thing for our community to discuss the similarities and differences between Open Source and Free Software. "

Mark Wielaard writes "Lat week the Linux Weekly News had an editorial on "How do we come to terms with Richard M. Stallman?". This week a lot of readers wrote letters to the editor about this matter. I for one think it is a good thing for our community to discuss the similarities and differences between Open Source and Free Software. "

Mark Wielaard writes "Lat week the Linux Weekly News had an editorial on "How do we come to terms with Richard M. Stallman?". This week a lot of readers wrote letters to the editor about this matter. I for one think it is a good thing for our community to discuss the similarities and differences between Open Source and Free Software. "

Maro Shim writes "After Oracle and Informix, IBM will announce support for their DB2 database under Linux. Sybase and Caldera will announce Sybase for Linux "

Maro Shim writes "After Oracle and Informix, IBM will announce support for their DB2 database under Linux. Sybase and Caldera will announce Sybase for Linux "

Software Magazine has a very positive editorial about Linux and devotes its cover article to Linux. It's interesting to see how weak the counter arguments to use NT or a proprietary Unix appear. It's also good to see the snotty-14-year-old myth being dispelled. I expect the Linux community has a higher ratio of PhD's/highly educated people per head of population than Microsoft does itself... Thanks to Linux Weekly News for the second reference.

Linux Weekly News is becoming quite a competitor ;->. They report on an article in Computer Reseller News that talks about Gnome and KDE. But what interests me in it, is that an official from IBM said that it is likely IBM will pledge its support to Linux

Linux had a good day today, with 2 gems brought to us by our collegues at Linux Weekly News. The first is of a journalist discovering Linux, much to her own surprise.... Another surprise is that NASA's Beowulf is now trying its hand at law-enforcement. It can trawl through logs that used to take 7 weeks to analyse in less than an hour. Now all we need to do is build HAL...

Rodger Donaldson sent us a story that's on Linux Weekly News right now. Apparently we've got vendors now selling PPC Linux boxes. Now you don't need to handle that messy Apple overhead for your butt kicking super machine. Check it out over Microux.com for the details.

David Ishee has written a piece on the Fear of X.0 where he talks about (surprise!) release versions of software. It's worth a gander... The following is a feature written by Slashdot Reader David Ishee

I'd like to offer an observation of the software industry and the often stated fears of a new version of software.

The idea jumped at me after reading the Linux Weekly News site and seeing a reference to an Info World article called: "Analysts at GigaWorld say skip NT 5.0"

To quote from the article:

"Analysts here at GigaWorld IT Forum '98 advised attendees to forgo Windows NT 5.0 and wait for a later release.

With 30 million lines of code, 85 percent of which is new, Windows NT 5.0 is likely to be buggy, said Rob Enderle, director of desktop and mobile technology at Giga Information Group, last week.

"It's too complex and too new," Enderle said. "Even inside Microsoft, there's a realization that the product won't ramp to volume until NT 6.0 because of the fear of initial releases."

Enderle advised waiting until service pack 3, or NT 5.5, which could be out a year or so after NT 5.0."

I have seen this type of attitude expressed in the press and by people on the net before about various software projects.

One project that stands out in glaring contrast is the GIMP. The GIMP just went 1.0 and if I'm correct, many people were eagerly awaiting the release and confident of its stability and usefulness.

Why is that?

The main difference in the development of Windows NT and the development of GIMP is the open source philosophy of "release early, release often" as expressed in the Cathedral and Bazaar paper that has gotten so much attention recently.

I've used GIMP 0.54, and various 0.99.X releases (even submitted a couple of bug reports) and I could see and follow the development, the improvements, and the increases in stability as many others probably did as well. When version 1.0 hit the net, there was no fear of the X.0 release. I knew it was going to be great because I had participated in the development by trying it out at the various stages. How many times was a new release posted to Slashdot with the hope that "this was the last version before 1.0?" Why did these last few releases occur? Obviously there was a few things found that had to be ironed out before it was declared ready for prime time.

Contrast this approach with new releases of Windows, or any proprietary software. You don't get to participate in the same manner. Sure, there are beta releases that come out (like with the Win95 pre-releases), but they are spaced much wider apart compared to GIMP releases, and not nearly as many releases occur. More importantly, you never get to test out the last version before X.0 where the software is released once more to make sure it can be declared done. You may see a few betas, but the changes to the last beta and version X.0 is likely to be significant.

There are probably many reasons that I'm not aware of about why people like Microsoft only push a few betas out the door (such as the pressure from marketing to get it out in time for the Christmas shopping season, or whatever).

The effect achieved by Microsoft (and probably others too) is that version X.0 is really just another beta release that we have to pay for and hope the next version (or service pack) gets the bugs fixed while not introducing others (I remember keeping up with the service packs for OS/2 before my Linux conversion).

The confidence the user gets from the "release early, release often" method is powerful. It makes me more confident in the 2.2 kernel knowing that we are past version 2.1.100+ in the development branch even though I haven't tried any development kernels.

The "release early" part of the equation can easily be used by proprietary vendors, but can "release often" as experienced in the open source world be duplicated also? I'm not sure. The common experience seems to support the theory that the large complex software systems being built today like desktop environments, operating systems, and the like are so hard to test thoroughly by a finite number of developers in one company that the additional help from potential users on the net and around the world are needed to test every permutation of the software's functionality and fix the bugs to be able to "release often".

So far, it appears that only the open source world has embraced the "release early, release often" philosophy (or created it?) and been able to implement it well enough to capitalize on the confidence to be gained in version X.0 by active participation by the prospective users.

We have all heard the skepticism that companies can't make money (or at least LOTS of money) from open source methods. User confidence in the quality of your software provides you with a powerful marketing tool. One tried and true way of getting that confidence is to use open source software. Everything seems to add up to the conclusion that open source software is an advantage, not a disadvantage. Then again, maybe I'm just a nutcase and these two examples are not representative. While no methodology is likely to be a "once size fits all", maybe open source is at least a "this size fits better". You decide.

karsten self wrote in to tell us LWN is running a bit saying that the LSB has been getting a lot of approval out at the expo. This is a Good Thing(tm) and I'm glad to see it.