Slashdot Mirror

I'm not the parent poster but I would guess that he's speaking a potential user of/developer of solutions for GPL'd software. Even GPL v2 is complex enough to make company lawyers very risk averse; in larger companies I've worked for (>500 employees), these lawyers basically warned against shipping with someone else's free software except for a few household names which were considered safe (Linux, Perl, etc.).

For example, developers trying to build a solution around My SQL, which is part of the "LAMP" acronym for crissakes, might find themselves on the receiving end of some legal nasty-grams unless they make sure to cut My SQL AB a good chunk of the pie up front, or release the source code to their entire application (which in some circumstances could be a good business decision, but in other circumstances it isn't).

Also, GPLv3 seems much more complex than GPLv2. That's not good... more complex clauses that can be interpreted different ways by scheming lawyers (think SCO) and judges all over the world.

OEOne
http://www.ofb.biz/article.pl?sid=93
and the fork Penzilla
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pendesktop/

I'm gonna have to say "me too."
Funny how I never hear people say the opposite: "Gee, I couldn't get anything done with KDE, so I switched to GNOME."
Buy, you know what? GNOME will win, even though they're usability-challenged. It has a nicer license. People will never develop business/desktop integration software on a GPLed toolkit. Not all of KDE is GPLed, however. Look how consfusing it is: http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/l icensing.html

Where did KDE go wrong? Qt.

Proprietary Qt libraries? I've got news for you: QT is GPL licensed as well.

Closer to QPL, read the following to understand more...

http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=arti cle&sid=364&mode=&order=0&thold=0

The short if it is:

A smooth roadmap ought to include licensing and other non-technical concerns along with the technology. Unless KDE can get Trolltech to release Qt/X11 under the LGPL, or at least get a guarantee that Qt/Commercial licenses will never go above a certain price and never have any more restrictions in usage than the present EULA has, the roadmap will always have a certain air of uncertainty to long-term enterprise decision makers.

By Timothy R. Butler Editor-in-Chief, Open for Business July 05, 2005, 22:32:41 EDT

Slashdot (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/08/04/1338205. shtml?tid=118&tid=158&tid=3) and others are referencing this article (http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=art icle&sid=380&mode=&order=0&thold=0) from Ofb.biz which states that our reports of the TPM module in the Developers Kits "were incorrect." As you can see by visiting our TPM Resource Center however, the evidence is quite conclusive.
We're providing this lighthearted and irreverent rebuttal to prove it.

Palladium Not in Apple Dev Kits
By Timothy R. Butler
Editor-in-Chief, Open for Business
August 03, 2005, 22:38:05 EDT

EXCLUSIVE. Earlier reports circulating around the Internet concerning Apple's inclusion of a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip in Intel-based Macs were incorrect, OfB has learned. News of the inclusion of the chip, based on the technology formerly known as Palladium, had spread across the Internet as wildfire in recent days and many news outlets, including Open for Business, had published commentary on the dramatic revelation of the technology's inclusion.

The alleged digital rights management chip was said to be included in Apple Developer Transition Kits. These kits are early Intel-based Macintosh systems Apple has been providing for lease to Apple developers at a price of $995 since company CEO Steve Jobs announced the transition away from PowerPC in June.

* All very true so far.

The Trusted Computing Group's technology has been surrounded by controversy since word first broke out about it in 2002. The Trusted Computing Group is an industry consortium sponsored by Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Hewlett-Packard Sun Microsystems and IBM. Macintosh aficionados had been pleased in the past that their platform was isolated from the technology, making the claims released this week all the more disconcerting to many.

* Such claims are disconcerting because the evidence supports them. Visit our Knowledge Base for more support.

Commenting on earlier reports, a reliable source who requested anonymity told OfB, "While many rumors are being circulated on the web about Apple's future direction on Intel processors with DRM, the majority of them are just that - rumors." The source, a registered Apple developer, continued, "Reality is that these boxes are production PC's in an Apple case, not DRM or TCPA protected, and none of these boxes will remain in circulation after their purpose has been served - they must be returned to Apple.

* This is just poor journalism. They base their entire story on the word of one anonymous source. The "a registered Apple developer" intends to provide credibility, but gives none as it's simply a membership do the ADC. It's doesn't give him the credentials to be an expert on the TPM.

As to why those with access to the kits have been quiet concerning the claims, our source said, "you can rest assured that Apple is keeping very close tabs on those of us who have them." The kits are only available to those who accept a non-disclosure agreement.

* Hmm... it looks like their anonymous source is as law abiding as he is accurate.

The Open for Business source also cautioned against trying to predict too much about the future Intel-based Macs from the developer kits. "Because they are developer kits only, future functionality of boot protection that prevents OS X x86 from booting on compatible non-Apple hardware, graphical interface, and other underlying technologies are emulated and do not reflect a production environment." The source emphasized that "they [are not] indicative of the future production release of Mac OS X for Intel."

True. I don't know why such absolutely non-informative reviews get submitted in the first place, when there are much better sources of information and reviews. In a post above, I mentioned this one, which I enjoyed a lot.

This is a rather shallow review and has been discussed over at OSNews. Just read the comments and you'll finde you don't need to read the actual review.

Someone mentioned a better review here. Enjoy!

To explain my rebuttal of the "KDE has better design" claim:
Gnome is more open in development. It allows concurrent solutions for the same problem. Later the best solution will get picked, and the other solutions are deprecated. This might sound like a pain in the ass. It is.
But the alternative (the approach used by KDE) is even worse. The requirements are collected and after that one solution is implemented. There are no alternatives to this solution. Just as you learned in your software engineering textbook. To bad reality doesnt play by the textbook rules. Requirements change all of the time - there is just no way to know them before you have a working implementation and its learned about limitations - there is no way to fix this later.
The different design approach resulted in a pretty crappy start for Gnome. But it is gaining speed (as you can see with the 2.X releases). KDE OTOH seems to seriously slow down the older it gets.

Some of these points can also be found here:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=arti cle&sid=318

the sky is falling

MySQL is going to screw everyone.

Just because one person's twist on that interview says that MySQL is about to turn evil, doesn;t mean it's true. Read the article, not just the /. headline

I actually think that the article is very fair, but it's considerably more in depth than most people who only read the /. headlines will know.

I had been linked to that website from the Slashdot story on FreeBSD Printing.

I had been linked to that website from the Slashdot story on FreeBSD Printing.

RMS: When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations. Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx, (Update from RMS: GNU/LinEx is non-free), the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura, because that's the only installable distribution that consists entirely of free software.

1 RMS provided us with this update on GNU/LinEx: The developers told me that GNU/LinEx included only free software, but after this interview was published, people from GNU Spain and others have checked it and found non-free programs in it. I therefore cannot recommend GNU/LinEx at present. I hope that this problem will be corrected. Meanwhile, once again there is no installable GNU/Linux distribution that we can endorse; all of them include or recommend non-free software.

RMS: When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations. Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx, (Update from RMS: GNU/LinEx is non-free), the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura, because that's the only installable distribution that consists entirely of free software.

1 RMS provided us with this update on GNU/LinEx: The developers told me that GNU/LinEx included only free software, but after this interview was published, people from GNU Spain and others have checked it and found non-free programs in it. I therefore cannot recommend GNU/LinEx at present. I hope that this problem will be corrected. Meanwhile, once again there is no installable GNU/Linux distribution that we can endorse; all of them include or recommend non-free software.

The change that I asked Debian developers to make, some years ago, was to separate the two, such that we could refer people to Debian GNU/Linux without in the same act referring them also to the non-free software. This would make it possible for us to refer the public to Debian GNU/Linux. If in the future Debian GNU/Linux does not include the GNU manuals, this reference could not be wholeheartedly positive, but we could still make the reference.

well, if you visit apt-get.org and follow the instructions, you'll see that adding unofficial sources to /etc/apt/sources/list is far from a chore. Debian will still more than be able to accomodate non-free packages. There's absolutly nothing stopping all the non-free maintainers from making their own unofficial repository, and moreover, nothing stopping non-free maintainers from releasing their own version of debian which could include non-free packages. Knoppix does this, for instance. The original core goal of debian was to be an entirely free as in speech operating system, GNU compatible, which it is not because of the presence of non-free.

Richard M. Stallman on debian and non-free:

TRB: Let's say I came to you and I'm an end-user that has never used anything other than Windows. I have no command line experience, just point-and-click abilities. How would you configure a system for me -- what distribution (assuming you would choose GNU/Linux as the OS), software, and so forth, would you give me?

RMS: When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations. Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx (Update from RMS: GNU/LinEx is non-free), the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura, because that's the only installable distribution that consists entirely of free software. If I knew of more than one such distribution, I would choose between them based on practical considerations.

TRB: What about Debian GNU/Linux, which by default does not install any non-free software?

RMS: Non-free programs are not officially considered "part of Debian", but Debian does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org.

GNU/LinEx is better because it does not distribute or recommend those programs.

TRB: How about distributions, such as Mandrake or Red Hat, that keep non-free software out of their downloadable versions all together?

RMS: I would not rely on that, because I know they have not been very careful in checking whether packages really are free.

TRB: Does your desktop run GNU/Linux, and if so, do you run "GNU/LinEx" or some other distribution?

RMS: I travel most of the time, so I don't have a desktop machine, only a laptop. It runs Debian GNU/Linux, which was the best distribution in terms of respecting freedom as of the time we set up the machine. (The availability of GNU/LinEx is a recent development.)

TRB: Has the Free Software Foundation ever considered publishing a complete GNU/Linux distribution?

RMS: We sponsored the development of Debian GNU/Linux back in 1994.

from http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=arti cle&sid=260

Any linux distribution cannot stop its users, try as they might, from installing non-free software. debian just wants to stop officially endorsing it so they can accept the endorsement of the FSF and be truly GNU/linux, which is the purpose for which it was started.

The link provides this:
Anounced today that its first fiscal quarter of 2004 resulted in a positive operating result of [EURO] 280,000

Somehow I think some browswers do not like Euro symbol.

I think the FSF has been clear about this from the very start. It was _never_ about a "method of software methodology" (sic), that's the OSF viewpoint. You realise it's not a coincidence the first F in FSF means Free. And from the very start, it was not about price, it was about freedom.

RMS is but one man. He's not here to represent everyone, but for the last 20 years, he represented his ideals. Even he understands not everyone will agree with him, and that's alright.

There were other posts addressing is "dislike" of Debian. From the footnote of this article:

"Meanwhile, once again there is no installable GNU/Linux distribution that we can endorse; all of them include or recommend non-free software."

You can find more background info on the non-free divide, but like RMS reminds us in his footnote, there's a difference between what the developpers admit (or are even aware of) and what is actually the reality as defined by the strickest terms. Also, a thread has surfaced again on the debian mailing lists to modify the social contract about non-free.

He has said however, that he doesn't recommend Debian because of the free vs non-free issue and instead encourages the use of GNU/LinEx.

This goes to the core of what I and many others don't like about RMS -- he dislikes choice. Debian strongly encourages Free Software. Heck, they were founded on the concept of a Free Software distribution of Linux. However, because Debian offers users the option of non-Free Software, RMS no longer recommends it. In his somewhat Orwellian stance, RMS boldly claims that to be free one must not have the choice to use commercial software. He's so wrapped up in the concept that not sharing your source is an inherently Evil idea that he forgets that true Freedom includes the option to shoot yourself in the foot.

I dislike the polarized, fanatical "either with us or with the terrorists" stance that he takes towards proprietary software. I don't like it in politics, and I don't like it in the philosophy of software development. Plus, I don't like how he has only words of criticism and scorn for those who are making moves towards his stance but have not yet fully committed to it. You're just not good enough unless you're pushing for a total abolition of non-Free Software.

He's certainly more civil nowdays than to openly claim to hate Debian, but he certainly doesn't think it's good enough, and that's pretty much the parent poster's point.

It is true that he has done a lot to further it's progress, but lets face it, this is the person who hates debian simply because they include THE OPTION (which, mind you, has to be enabled by editing a text config file) of downloading non-free software.

This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you all know what I mean), etc

It's official. By the time you read this, Mandrake Linux 9.2 will be available to Mandrake Club members around the world. Mandrake Linux 9.2 marks the first release from the "big 3" distributors in about six months. If you're wondering whether you should rush out and install it, read on for our first look at a distribution from the Fall 2003 distribution release cycle.

For the purposes of this brief preview of Mandrake Linux 9.2, we tested a copy of the new "Discovery Edition" provided to us by MandrakeSoft. The Discovery Edition replaced the "Standard Edition" offered in previous releases, but it isn't just a fancy new name - it's a desktop focused distribution intended especially for novices (although, we feel more advanced users may be pleased with the simplicity of the Discovery Edition as well).

First there is the installation. Now, if you've installed any of the major GNU/Linux distributions in recent times, you know that most are quite simple to install as is, and Mandrake Linux is no exception. Discovery Edition takes a page out of the LindowsOS and Windows XP installers, however, and makes the existing Mandrake installer even simpler by removing package selection. While many additional packages are included for installation later, should they be needed, Discovery Edition focuses on installing what the average user needs without making them sift through tons of unfamiliar programs.

Once booted, Discovery Edition includes another quickly apparent simplification - task based menus. While Mandrake usually includes task-based menus as an option in Menudrake, they wisely chose to make it the default in this edition, thus freeing the user to worry about what they want to do rather than how they want to do it. I found the menu layout very intuitive, making it a snap to find the programs I wanted for various tasks. The standard menus were also available as a submenu for those wanting a specific tool for the job.

Another key to making a distribution novice friendly is insuring that everything works out of the box, and Mandrake Linux 9.2 succeeds there. When the system was booted for the first time, we were surprised and delighted to find ATI's official FireGL driver for the Radeon 9700 video card was already installed. To the best of my knowledge the only other distribution presently including the Radeon drivers from ATI is Lindows.

Other hardware that has been problematic also was installed. Our Hewlett-Packard PSC 2210's photo card reader was automatically mounted and unmounted (with a convenient icon on the desktop) - making it as easy to access the compact flash card that we inserted as it was to access a CD. This puts Mandrake Linux further in the lead as far as Hewlett-Packard multifunction devices are concerned, since we are unaware of any other current distribution that even properly detects the PSC 2210, much less properly configures the photo card reader.

The only issue we had with the hardware was actually a non-issue - the master, speaker and PCM volume controls on the soundcard were muted. Admittedly I should have caught it, but I overlooked the PCM volume control in my haste. It would have been nice if the friendlier aumix had been preinstalled along with kmix (which gets absolutely obnoxiously large when used with a SoundBlaster Live), but if this is the worst we have to complain about, it isn't much.

Also included was the newly released OpenOffice.org 1.1, which just barely made the release cycle. With this release's much speedier startup times, using the suite is much more pleasant than before. OpenOffice's many new features perfectly complement the Discovery Edition's improvements in usability to make the distribution perfect for a Windows replacement on an office desktop with no fuss at all.

We were esp

That some clueless noob at SCO was tasked with finding way to sploit their copy rights, discovered the OpenLinux SRPMS on their ftp server, decided that must mean that SCO owns all that source, and then declared the same source in the linux kernel as being infringing? 'Cause, you know, some clueless noob at IBM must have put it there, or something.

It sounds crazy, but it makes more sense than starting from the assumption that SCO really aren't disclosing the source simply so that we can't "launder" the kernel before SCO can get it to court.

I thought the link I made with the FSF statement on the APSL made that point clear enough : it's a practical and moral matter for many programmers to follow the FSF guidelines, moreover when software release is concerned. Maybe they could still do it in most cases, but many simply wouldn't because of Free Software principles.

rant
And moral issues are always relevent to moral people. For example, even if I think RMS pushes the enveloppe too far sometimes ( like his views on Debian in this interview ), I agree with most of his public statements. I think that everything is political in some way ( y'all ought to take some time to think about that if you didn't already ), and that sacrificing morality for mere practicality is dangerously frivolous.
/rant

Anyway, thanks for the reply mate, I realize my previous message could have been clearer :)

RMS speaks briefly on the SCO issue in this interview.

Debian still stands out as the distro most reflective of the GNU philosophy.

Actually, that's not true anymore. Things have changed and Debian is not the best example of free software or GNU. Check out GNU/Linex instead.

You'll not see a link to Debian from the FSF/GNU sites for this reason. Debian still distributes non-free software. Yes, you can install Debian without the optional non-free stuff, but they really do encourage installing non-free software on your system easily.

While RMS currently has a machine running Debian (without the non-free bits, I'm sure), he claims that it's because this new all-free distro (GNU/Linex) wasn't available at the time. See this recent RMS interview for more.

A pertinent quote:

TRB: Does the fact that, as is often pointed out, the GPL has not yet been tested in court concern you?

RMS: No wise person looks forward to a major battle, even if he expects to win it. Rather than being concerned that we have not yet tested the GPL in court, I'm encouraged by the fact that we have been successful for years in enforcing the GPL without needing to go to court. Many companies have looked at the odds and decided not to gamble on overturning the GPL. That's not the same as proof, but it is reassuring.

Agreed. As a greenie geek I spent a lot of time just getting up to speed. To save you some Googling (which is a great way to learn about OS/FS), let me post some links for you. These were articles that I've found particularly helpful.

• GNUWin II Articles Directory - A good collection of famous FS/OS articles.
• Philosophy section of the GNU Project - This is the extreme left wing of free software. I personally prefer a more moderate approach, but the ideas are engaging.
• Interview with Andreas Pour of the KDE Project - This interview did much to convert me to open source philosophies.
• Legal Concepts section of CreativeCommons.org - Masterminded by Lawrence Lessig, the legal champion of the public commons. One of the greatest minds working for the cause of FS/OS. He also has a couple of books that you might consider reading. I've read the first one and found it quite interesting.

Some of these weren't around when I was getting into things. Creative Commons came a bit later. Most of my earliest reading was from GNU. You've already found Slashdot, which is one of the best resources for learning about FS/OS, especially as it relates to current developments.

One word of caution: FS/OS is a religion. People can be very zealous about their views on it. Be careful as you formulate your own opinions, which will likely change over time. When in doubt, choose a more moderate approach. (If you're interested, my personal views can be found here.)

I hope this is helpful. Well, off to more reading myself...

Here's an excerpt:

Lindows.com announced today that it has previously entered into an agreement through which SCO would provide Lindows with certain technology. According to Michael Robertson, CEO of Lindows.com, this means that Lindows.com customers will not have to worry about SCO's ongoing attempts to "protect its IP." Interestingly enough, this may cause a much larger impact than Robertson bargained for.

Also, here's the original Lindows announcement.

The oft maligned Distribution Lindows might have dealt a fatal blow to SCO. Lindows is apparantly in the clear due to contract entered between SCO and Lindows sometime ago. Couple this with the GPL and the Kernel is cleared for ALL even if the SCO allegations is correct.

Since the editors didn't find this interesting enough to include, I'll post it here.

Lindows has claimed that their SCO license allowed them to relicense SCO kernel code as GPL. See here for the article. Basically it either means that Lindows has cleaned the offending kernel code or they're about to get sued off the face of the earth.

Lindows is apparantly in the clear due to contract entered between SCO and Lindows sometime ago. Couple this with the GPL and the Kernel is cleared for ALL even if the SCO allegations is correct.

Who would havwe thunk it. Lindows of all distributins.

Apparently Lindows has entered an agreement with SCO sometime ago, This coupled with the GPL may get the Linux kernel in the clear even if some of SCO's allegations are correct. Read details here

So many *experts* are just blowing smoke up their publisher's ass, for a paycheck, too...

Here is the first one that needs a clue:

http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=arti cle&sid=216

I dont understand why people are saying they are going away. The only place I hear about "Mandrake Linux is dying!" would be slashdot.

And Open For Business (unusual for Tim Butler to make this kind of blue, but...)

Gael Duval made the mistake of comparing the "bankruptcy protection" that Mandrake is under with a US Chapter 11. They are completely different. The idea in the US is that at this point the vultures gather and peck the unfortunate company to death (although when this happens to Microsoft I expect a number of uncultured louts to be gathered around EULA bonfires wearing party hats and making toasts with MSDN CDs); in France, the idea is that the company is repaired and gets a chance to catch its breath. The French government has approved Mandrake's plan for doing so.

It's worth reiterating that Mandrake are making a profit, but they've got some financial baggage from the halcyon dot-com days when a bright-eyed bushy-tailed and basically dumb management team spent too much money chasing non-core-business dreams.

I personally don't like some of the things Gael has done, but Mandrake as a whole is enthusiastic and productive. They're helping efforts like KDE enormously as well, and unlike certain other noisy for-profits who run everything as root, Mandrake GPL everything they do and actually publish the sources. They about as close to Debian as an RPM-based for-profit corp can be, and with a much more obvious concern for usability.

I dont understand why people are saying they are going away. The only place I hear about "Mandrake Linux is dying!" would be slashdot.

And Open For Business (unusual for Tim Butler to make this kind of blue, but...)

Gael Duval made the mistake of comparing the "bankruptcy protection" that Mandrake is under with a US Chapter 11. They are completely different. The idea in the US is that at this point the vultures gather and peck the unfortunate company to death (although when this happens to Microsoft I expect a number of uncultured louts to be gathered around EULA bonfires wearing party hats and making toasts with MSDN CDs); in France, the idea is that the company is repaired and gets a chance to catch its breath. The French government has approved Mandrake's plan for doing so.

It's worth reiterating that Mandrake are making a profit, but they've got some financial baggage from the halcyon dot-com days when a bright-eyed bushy-tailed and basically dumb management team spent too much money chasing non-core-business dreams.

I personally don't like some of the things Gael has done, but Mandrake as a whole is enthusiastic and productive. They're helping efforts like KDE enormously as well, and unlike certain other noisy for-profits who run everything as root, Mandrake GPL everything they do and actually publish the sources. They about as close to Debian as an RPM-based for-profit corp can be, and with a much more obvious concern for usability.

You bring up an interesting point. I'm glad MY government doesn't fund open source projects. Why should MY tax dollars fund development that is going to be used by people who don't pay taxes to the US?

This is just one more thing that the government has no business wasting my money on.

You're probably just a troll, but for all those readers who may be swayed by your amazingly bad attitude, let me explain why governemt funding of open source software is a very good thing.

We live in a global economy. If the U.S. takes an economic plunge, the world feels it. The same is true (although perhaps less strongly felt) for other countries, especially Europe and Japan. IANAE (I am not an economist), but doesn't it make sense that one government's expenses to benefit its own economy have an effect on the global economy? How much money has the U.S. governemt spent on technological research? Doesn't technology benefit the world? What about medical research? How much has government-funded research improved the quality of medical care around the world?

Now consider this: Would you rather the government 1) pay an international tax to some software developer in another country, or 2) develop their own software (which they can maintain total control of and don't have to pay an international company to use) while benefitting their own people by providing great free software and employing software designers?

There was a great interview with Andreas Pour of KDE where he talked about government funding of open source projects. The section is too long to quote here (I hate those super-long comments...) but here's a small chunk:

If you will, you can liken a desktop infrastructure as society's infrastructure, not so different from roads, schools, universities and emergency services. These types of infrastructure are inherently monopolistic since economic (development cost, transaction costs, return on investment, etc.) and "moral" factors (freedom, equality, etc.) are such that the use of taxes for creating and maintaining them is universal.

The most difficult challenge to obtaining substantial financial contributions for FS / OS projects is that the person making the contribution does not, in general, obtain a proportionately larger benefit. So currently financial contributions (including hiring developers or releasing proprietary code to the FS / OS communities) are made mainly when the cost to the bottom line is reasonable (e.g., a company may conclude that releasing a product which it was already distributing for free would reduce its development costs without impacting its revenues, and perhaps also increase market share for the proprietary enhancements). But it is far less likely that a company will on its own fund the development of a widely-used product with no particular benefit to it.

As with roads and schools, however, Governments need not concern themselves with questions of direct returns on investment. Improvements in the general welfare alone justify public expenditures. Rather than seek to reap profits for some relatively small set of owners, the purpose of Government spending is to improve the quality of life for all their citizens. Moreover, a large part of the Government's historic economic role was to spread costs among its citizens where the benefits would be shared largely by all and the economics of development made other forms of construction less practical. Finally, Governments of free nations dedicated to the principles of freedom, democracy and choice have traditionally allocated resources to important public projects that promote or preserve these essential human rights.

Surely any believer in free government must consider this a powerful argument in favor of governemt funding for open source. Would you rather the government pay to fix bugs in MS software? That's being done as well, so stop complaining or CowboyNeal will eat you.

I read that in a recent interview of Mandrake Linux founder Gaël Duval at Ofb.biz:
Interview:
For the future, we are thinking about a "Mandrake Foundation" which would be a non-profit organization that focuses on developing the Mandrake Linux distribution exclusively. It would be financed partly by Club memberships and/or donations and/or by a "Street performer"-like system, and partly by companies that make money with Mandrake products, including MandrakeSoft. We think this approach would be much clearer for everyone to understand, and would also provide a more secure future for the Mandrake Linux distribution. It would also help MandrakeSoft become a more successful and profitable company by cutting most of its development costs.

In this interview they talk with the authors of the Conectiva Crystal icons, and about using karbon to make them. They link to this screenshot.

Even though this is my first venture into vector art, I must say I like it - it looks like it could even make an artist out of me!

I wrote an article that talks about this very thing! Check it out at Open For Business.

I put up a mirror of the piece on our server at OfB.biz. Hopefully that will help since the promo.kde.org server is unavailable right now.

HTH,
Tim

I put up a mirror of the piece on our server at OfB.biz. Hopefully that will help since the promo.kde.org server is unavailable right now.

HTH,
Tim

We have licensed Penzilla and its applications under the same tri-license (GPL/LPGL/MPL) that Mozilla uses to make it easy for developers to reuse. HomeBase DESKTOP is therefore a free product.

Slashdotted already, here's a mirror--

mirror

If you administer computers for your company, change the default filetypes in MS Office to open ones. Most users won't even notice. Even fewer will complain. Those who absolutely HAVE to use *.doc can go ahead. But they'll be only a small percentage of your users.

I don't have authority to mandate that all of my group members use OpenOffice.org. But I do what I can here and there to further the cause and to prevent us from being locked into a proprietary prison.

First off:

First off, I never claimed to be all knowing-- not sure where you got that idea. I'm just stating my opinions in opposition to yours.

Opinions generally take the form of "I think" or "It is of my opinion". It becomes more than just an opinion when you start making blanket claims, criticize, and use your opinions to "inform" others of their wrongness. I suppose the NAZI's didn't do anything wrong, since afterall, it was of their opinion that Jewish people were bad. Dumbass.

HP hasn't given me any reason not to trust them, and until they do, I'm saying that I don't have a problem paying a little extra for what seems to be more reliable hardware. Can you honestly tell me that HP printers are not the most reliable on the market?

Besides, based on your cynical point of view, by even purchasing hardware (as opposed to making it yourself), you are playing the hypocrit. Where do you think the parts that make up cd drives and other computer hardware come from? Even generic drives have Via, Motorola, IBM, or other big name chips and components in them. Using your verbage, "Who is Motorola".

You sound very much like the quintessential Linux user. You probably think that you are better than everyone else because you use linux. And yes, I AM making assumptions about you now, but your pisspoor arrogant attitude doesn't leave much for the imagination. Just speculating, but based on your frugality when purchasing hardware, my guess is that you are one of those OSS "users" that are just that: "users". You probably don't do anything in the way of contributing back to the community, do you? In fact, you are probably one of those guys that Pour talks about, "Damn it, why is this [ so or not like so ]?" ... Demanding that things be fixed in Linux as opposed to doing it yourself.

I don't use Linux for political or ideological reasons. I use it because it works well for a few jobs. I imagine-- just making an educated guess, her-- that the vast majority of Linux users are in the same situation as me. They use it because, for whatever their purpose is, it works.

To ignore the political aspect is foolish at best. Just recently /. posted a story on Andreas Pour on KDE (interview here) where he went on at some length about the dangers of trusting your data to closed, proprietary systems. I chose Linux because I don't want to lose some of my freedom to a private corporation (*cough*MS*cough). There are times I have to bite the bullent and use Windows and Office ( and etc.), but I always look for ways to avoid them and use open systems instead.

Someone once said there are two solutions for every problem: the easy way and the right way. Freedom is the right way, and Linux gives me freedom.

You might be interested in the article I wrote a few weeks ago considering a scenario similar to what you mention with Palladium.

I mentioned this in a few of the threads that asked about the hat, but I thought more people might see this if I posted a top level response. The penguin with the American flag hat is for wIndependence Day. :-)

Best,
Tim (LDN Founding Member - OfB.biz)

You are definately over simplifying the jobs of the Slashdot editors. As the editor of a much smaller open source related news site (www.ofb.biz), I can tell you from experience that it takes a lot of time to find good news stories. Sure, the Slashdot editors receive many submissions, but is it really that much easier to sort through thousands of submissions? I certainly don't envy that job.

Also, I think you over look the fact that Slashdot works more like a "clearing house" for information, rather than a source of original content. For instance, this interesting story about Sony - would you have found it if not for Slashdot or some similar site? Probably not, unless you regularly read Japanese publications. I can't tell you how many things I wouldn't have read about on Linux, Microsoft, Computer Hardware, even science and other non-computer news if not for Slashdot. It's also worth noting that during the the aftermath of the WTC attack, when sites like CNN.com where struggling to hold on, Slashdot provided it's viewers with timely information and links which were much appreciated by (I'm sure) many people other than myself.

Finally, I think you are overlooking the fact that a site requires a lot more work than content alone. Whether it be updating and moving things over to a new version of Slashcode, fixing some newly discovered bug, or just trying to figure out an annoying MySQL error, sites - especially large ones - require a *lot* of work to keep up.

Anyway, perhaps Slashdot isn't for you, but to call it an easy job, or to say Slashdot's information isn't for those who think - is just plain silly. Unless of course you already knew everything about artificial eyes (see stories from earlier today), and have already started planning your own billion transistor processor (see the story about Intel from yesterday).