Slashdot Mirror
Caldera OpenLinux 3.1 Reviewed
Patrick Mullen writes: "The Duke of URL has just posted its review of Caldera's OpenLinux Workstation 3.1. Caldera is probably best known for going against the grain in the Linux world and is the first Linux distribution to introduce per seat licensing. Version 3.1 has made a lot of advances such as full OEM testing, but is it worth the per-seat licensing?" Is this any different from other distributions' "power packs," which bundle Free software with proprietary? According to the Caldera site, you can download the ISOs as well as the source to the server and workstation varieties of Open Linux on a (eh?) "single, non-commercial license."
Not that I believe the latest and greatest is always the best, but this one seems a little light on the newer features...Kernel 2.4.2 KDE 2.1, OpenSSH 2.5.2 (doesn't this one have a known flaw in it?).
See, the problem with Caldera's per seat licensing model is not so much that it is evil (ok, it's not, it's a business thing, but it just feels wrong) as much as it is that for it to really succeed they need to actually add value. I'm not sure they really do right now, since I can download redhat or mandrake with little worries.
This would all be different if _no_ linux company offered downloadable isos...
Btw, and only mostly off topic, anyone have any opinions on gentoo based on actual experience?
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Another one that will bite the dust soon.
If you ask me, RMS is right about Caldera. They were never serious about the open source model and can pretty much be gone. They will not be missed.
wow, comparing someone who sells software to a group that murders its own people (not to mention us, at least indirectly).
very insightful.
-- too cruel for schuel
For the umpteenth time:
Caldera provides free downloads of the source code to all GPL software in their distribution. The also add no legal restrictions to those software packages.
The distribution as a whole, though, is not GPL and therefore carries a license that Caldera feels happy with. It may be a sucky license and I won't use their distribution because of it, but its their party and they can do what they want.
I think I speak for the majority of experienced sysadmins when I say that closed source software is a huge pain to support. Excluding relational databases and the like, the majority of the time, using OSS exclusively just makes sense. I'm not a Stallmanite and I don't mind software that is released under a non-Free Open Source license (like IPfilter) - although those packages do have limited benefit to the community because of distribution restrictions. It's just that being able to change the source and recompile it of the utmost importance when dealing with software conflicts, bugs, and customization. And that's why I think these "powerpacks" are a bad idea - they're just a bunch of bloat, and they tie my hands as a sysadmin because I can't fix them when they break.
If I wanted to have a job where I had to wake up every day and tell my users, "sorry, that's just the way it works" or "I can't do anything about that", I would administer a bunch of Win2k boxes. But I run a cluster of Linux systems because I like the environment, and it helps me serve my employer and my users to the best of my ability. Nothing is impossible if the admin is willing to do a little hacking and recompiling. And that's why closed-source powerpacks are undermining all of the advantages that OSS has brought to the marketplace.
-sting3r
Talking to yourself again, idiot?
-The AC Avenger
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Caldera's per seat licensing - I say good luck to them. The reason Linux has survived while others dies is because it is impossible to attack in Microsoft's standard way (embrace and destroy). If Caldera want to move away from this and think they can compete in that world - then go to it.
:-)
The worrying thing is that Microsoft might suddenly figure out that they can just buy Caldera and bin it if it gets too much of a pain (although I suppose that applies to any Linux friendly public company).
Never mind hey - the guiding principal that nothing with Linux should prevent choice allows them to do what they do, we should be happy about this simply as a demonstration of the joy that is Linux
Carpe Daemon
Why not have a look atn alogy
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#a
for a guide on how to argue a bit better.
Carpe Daemon
No, just low on karma. I don't believe a word of it. -sting3r (posting anonymously so you can't prove this is me)
No I haven't but thanks for sharing.
Taliban and Open Source. An analogy made in Hell.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Caldera is worthless. I bought version ?.? a couple of years ago and the default kernel already included the Promise ATA/33 driver. Caldera in their infinate wisdom took this out so it would never install properly. I called their technical support and their solution was to wait for the next version that would be out in a couple of months!!! Fcuk Them.
OpenLinux WS has been out for a long time (many months). Most people wouldn't have realized that because Slashdot never posted a story to recognize that fact. This is why the packages seem a bit dated by now. Next time, before you flame a distro, check the Updates Directory which will show you a version of OpenSSH at 2.9.
Also, if you want the latest and greatest KDE, have no fear. Plenty of core KDE developers are employed by Caldera, so right from the official KDE FTP sight, you can spend the day downloading 2.2.1. I installed it on my workstation (yes, I use OpenLinux Workstation at work) and it works fine. 2.4.2 was the latest kernel available at the time of release, and since there have been no gaping security holes and that kernel has proven fairly stable, there's no reason to mess with a good thing.
Finally, I don't have too much to say with the licensing thing. Of course it was a business decision. As you might expect, with Caldera's stock hovering around 30 cents they're doing all they can to generate revenue. I wish them the best in these tough times.
Do we really want one Linux company?
This business model is what my grandma would call "neither here nor there" (or "nisht a hin nisht a her", excuse the sp), it's not really open source, yet isn't the prevailing evil (read XP). These things resolve pretty quickly typically, I must say that Caldera has held on to the fence for a longer while than I'd expect but in the long run it combines the least attractive features of both sides: less support and closed source/high prices.
Per seat licensing? I know it goes against the grain, but at they are trying to make some serious money off of Linux. Times are tight, and if they need some capital, they will not get it by telling potential investors that they plan to make money selling an $80 boxed Linux that a company of 10,000 people can use to cover the OS for every employee they have.
The GPL was never intended to protect the code from commersial use.
It was intendet to protect the GPL'ed code from being used in closed source and restrictive licenced products/projects.
You can sell GPL'ed products all you want as long as you give the buyer the rights the GPL says you have to give to the buyer.
Another thing is that the GPL make commercial use difficult if you are making an "of the shelf" product because it requiers you to give away the source code and the right to redistribute to all buyers.
If you are making customized applications for spesific customers using GPL'ed projects as a starting point can save you lots of work and the requirements of the GPL can even be used as a selling point; "you get the source so if I go broke you can get another company to do any furhter developments needed".
So am I. And it doesno't affect karma, either. They just pull the plug on your account.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
>So, GPL does not protect the code from commercial use after all.
It never did. That's NOT the purpose of the GPL.The purpose of the GPL is not to overtly prevent people making profit off of software; but rather to force people who use GPLed code to release any code they combine it with or changes they make to it to be publicly available, which Caldera apparently does (see the blurb in the article).
--I hate people when they're not polite -"Psycho Killer", Talking Heads
Aren't you the goatse.cx guy?
One of the strongest arguments in Linux's favor in many business settings is the avoidance of licensing encumbrances. This is becoming even stronger with the licensing changes and copy protection coming with XP.
Caldera is shooting itself in the face with per seat licensing.
What's a sig?
The Taliban haven't murdered anyone, the group led by bin Laden has, but then again do we really know? All extremist actions (whether software, or religion) lead to bad judgement and allientation in the end.
An exploration of mixology, spirits and bartending.
OpenLinux WS has been out for a long time (many months). Most people wouldn't have realized that because Slashdot never posted a story to recognize that fact. This is why the packages seem a bit dated by now. Next time, before you flame a distro, check the Updates Directory [caldera.com] which will show you a version of OpenSSH at 2.9. Fair enough. I didn't check their updates directory, although I wouldn't have actually called my comment a flame. I must admit, my first experience with caldera was not so hot, and I may be a tad colored by it. Also, if you want the latest and greatest KDE, have no fear. Plenty of core KDE developers are employed by Caldera, so right from the official KDE FTP sight, you can spend the day downloading 2.2.1. perhaps I misread your tone here, but there are very valid reasons for using kde 2.2.1, including imap support in kmail and 2.1 not working with a piece of software that I use (nothing anyone here has heard of). And I'll applaud them employing kde developers. On a side note, I find it interesting that the government (who I work for) doesn't employ more free software people. A coworker and I have thought of several ways where your tax dollars could have been better spent by hiring a free software writer to improve a particular piece of code over paying a license fee for a commercial piece. 2.4.2 was the latest kernel available at the time of release, and since there have been no gaping security holes and that kernel has proven fairly stable, there's no reason to mess with a good thing. except for a tcp/ip bug that will impact my users Do we really want one Linux company? Nope, of course not. I really applaud Libranet for their model (you gotta buy it, but after that, you can do whatever), and OpenBSD (actually basing the no-copy thing on something that actually makes sense, sort of). I like redhat and mandrake. I never got into debian. I think Progeny and Libra certainly have the right idea, and I have heard many good things about them. I'm about to give a go to gentoo. I've used caldera and trinux. I have an esmith firewall.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Tje problem is that GPL cannot enforce people to pay you. Eventually, you end up acting like a charity, waiting for donations or weird investments from VC (virtually nonexistent now). Not that it is bad for consumers, but it is certainly bad for software developers.
¦ ©® ±
This is great. You might think that the per-seat licensing requirement is a bit naff, but in the corporate world they will see this as proof that the OS is good. You know, "You get what you pay for" sort of thing.
If OpenLinux 3.2 comes out soon with the latest and greatest KDE, KOffice and Open/StarOffice integrated, it will be even more compelling for corporates. $60 instead of $200 for WinXP.
I wonder if Caldera do bulk-discounts on their fees? Purchasing 100 seats for $30/seat, say. That will make them even more attractive for those newly-cash-strapped companies.
The hardest part for Caldera is to get companies to think about upgrading(cross-grading) their systems. If the company is happy with the current Win2000/Win9X environment, then why will they cross-grade to Caldera? Microsoft have no problems getting users to upgrade however! They just make future licensing fees really harsh, giving you the option to "upgrade now, or pay a lot more later"...
In fact, Microsoft's licenses and business practices are positively anti-corporate now. Increasing prices, forcing corporates to upgrade sooner rather than later, etc. But I am getting off-track.
Personally, if I was an IT manager, I would look at the current computer network, and if the PCs were good enough, I would keep them the same. Hold off hardware upgrades and software upgrades for a year. There is little compelling reason to upgrade a network of PII 266s running '95 to P4 2000s running XP right at the moment. If they do the job, leave them doing the job!
Gawd, why don't corporates buy their computer systems to last more than 3 years? Suns last over 10 years in a company, Macs over 5 years. Is it just because the bog standard PC is so crapply built that it dies after 3 years?
ok, flame me for not previewing. I normally post plain text and don't need to
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
I get it! They're just being innovative so that they can generate more banner ad views when each user has to burn 1.5megs of bandwidth visiting Caldera's website 3 times in a row to download three sets of ISO's instead of just one for use on those 3 junk computers they have sitting around the house. Now that's +1 Insightful on Caldera's behalf!
Two years ago I bought a copy of Open Linux. I was looking for a newbie friendly distribution since I was a newbie. I put Windows on one partition, and Open Linux on the other. Right off the bat I noticed that Linux was thrashing to the hard drive. It was the worst I had ever see that happening, and thought that Linux was just awful based on that experience. I later found out that the distribution I bought didn't turn the swap space on. I was so annoyed that I immediately switched to Debian, which led to an almost immediate switch to SuSE.
I'm very happy in the SuSE world now.
The middle mind speaks!
tags between quotes and your response.
Of course, I've never made that sort of mistake when posting comments to kuro5hin.
Best Slashdot Co
There is no such open source/free software license because such a restriction would actually violate both the free software philosophy and the open source definition.
Also, something released under a license with that restriction would never get distributed too widely: Basically no OS could include the package. The only major Linux distribution that could include the package legally would be Debian, and they won't do it because they won't ship anything that isn't free.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Going offtopic, so posting anonymously.
I tried Gentoo. It's a great distro, bringing together the best of Slackware and OpenBSD. The advantages, IMO, are the ports-like system and that you have to do everything by hand. Also you can install in a ReiserFS.
The ports system, called portage, is great. If you use GNOME, for example, apps will be compiled with GNOME support; else, only with Gtk. The same works for sound, you can specify OSS x ALSA, esd, etc.
As a dedicated SuSe user, I thought I would give this a quick try and compare the two as both are KDE centric distributions.
In terms of the basic components, Suse seems to have a slight edge, shipping Kernel 2.4.4 compared to 2.4.2, KDE 2.1.2 compared to 2.1.0 and the same release of Xfree86 (4.0.3). SuSE seem to go further with shipping of Samba 2.2 and a personal firewall product, which must give them a much higher security rating than Caldera. SuSE have also been very quick to release updates for KDE, their automated update tool recently updated KDE 2.1.2 to 2.2. for me and I believe 2.2.1 is now available for download.
Both distributions integrate admin functionality into the KDE Control Center and I think Caldera have done a much more comprehensive job then SuSE on this to date. However, this can be a mixed blessing. I still prefer to drop out of X and use YAST 1 for system administration, which is SuSE's text based administration tool.This functionality seemed lacking in Caldara, perhaps deliberatly.
I have been very impressed with SuSEs hardware detection, the only problem I have found recently was with a modem on a IBM Thinkpad (although Windows 2000 also failed to detect this correctly). Installing Caldara posed no problems, altough this is based on a sample of one old IBM PC.
SuSE wins in terms of default telnet and FTP servers, but again I suspect this is a design decision. Although not enabled by default, both are very easy to configure and I find the ability to telnet and FTP to my work PC when working from home one of the strongest selling points of Linux generally.
Both graphical installers are good, although Caldera have the edge. However, I wonder how useful this is. Ideally you should see a graphical installer once and then use a PC for 3 years without seeing it again. However, if this is aimed at the corporate market it may be that people setting up 100's of PCs want some eye candy, but even then there comes a point where excessive graphics cease to be useful and simply become irriating.
The snapshots feature in Caldara looks useful and is one I hope other vendors copy.
Overall, if you are looking for a KDE centric distribution, I think SuSE still edges it, in terms of the frequency and range of packages and updates. For users who like to run and administer their own systems SuSE wins every time for me. However, for the corporate market Caldera is aiming at, where administrators like to supply users with locked down desktops, I think Caldera have done a great job and you have to wish them every success in this area.
I use Slackware pretty exclusively, and always install from my downloaded mirror. However, every customer I set up Linux with must purchase the Slackware CD set (about $40). This is my way to help Patrick keep going. I am not exempt from this, as I have every version released on CD in my library. If I had went with Caldera, I would have those disks.
On another note, I have purchased the Tarantella Express package (pre-Caldera buying SCO). For the $600, I got Caldera eServer. I did try it out, but instead am using Tarantella on Slackware. But, I never minded having a portion of funds going to Caldera for their server Linux system.
Click here or here.
Taliban haven't murdered anyone
only if fellow afhganis don't count as "anyone". read the newspaper for more info!
to realnowhwereman:
look at this. (this discussion needs the taliban like dick cheney needs another grilled cheese sandwich)
-- too cruel for schuel
I chose Caldera Linux for my workstation at work.
It was the only distribution that installed flawlessly the first time I tried. My workstation's hardware components were on the HCL of all the distributions I tried, but most incorrectly detected my monitor and video card and I was stuck futzing with X trying to get out of 640x480 at 16 colors. Caldera got DHCP working during install, while other's forced me to figure that out afterwards. Some seemed to install correctly, but wouldn't boot. I could go on and on.
I only use the free software part of Caldera, but the entire package feels coherent and professional.
Another post was complaining about it 'only' including KDE 2.2 and the 2.4.2 kernel. Well, I don't know of any distributions that don't need to be updated after install, at least Caldera is just a quick patch to the latest and greatest. It also has the KDE and QT development tools installed by default, ready to go. Very cool, IMO.
I guess the licence thing just isn't an issue for me since I found the tool I needed and it works the way I expect it. In fact, I downloaded this ISO along with it's source from Caldera's website for free, so I don't know what the license issue is for sure.
This is all anecdotal of course, but I just wanted to throw some positive Caldera energy out into all of this negative.
(P.S. The other distributions I tried were Debian 2.2r3, Slackware 8.0, Mandrake 8.0, RedHat 7.1 and 7.2 beta, and SuSE demo disk. All were downloaded as ISOs from the manufacturer's website and burned to CD-R.)
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
what? there is? who makes it? i hadnt heard of this. hmm. probably just some fFly-by-night company makes it, i imagine. like bob's TV-VCR-repair-Car-sales-and-operating-systems. what version are they up to on it? is that XP 1.0?
If you include somebody elses code you can write any licence you want that is compartible with the licence of the code you include.
Serials 2000
The reason telnetd and ftpd are disabled by default is that both services send your username and password across the network in the clear...doing this from home to your work machine is A Very Bad Idea. Look into ssh, sftp, etc...
Caldera made me fall in love with Linux. Before trying out Caldera, I had been playing around with Debian and SUSE for a few months, and not getting much accomplished. Hardware support was terrible. Finally, I tried out Caldera...imagine my surprise to see that beautiful graphical login! and Tetris while it installs! This was the first graphical install I had seen (as far as I know, the first widely distributed one too), and it detected everything right off the back. My new DSL line was humming. All the networks services practically configured themselves. Granted it wasn't flawless...there was no swap space, as has been mentioned before...took a while to figure out Samba. But that Caldera 2.3 install I made over two years ago is still running my server. I've been using Mandrake on the desktop as of late, and I think it's definitely outpowered Caldera. And I'm moving both my workstation and server to a homebrew distro (linuxfromscratch). But Caldera 2.3 will always have a special place in my heart.
*Life is too serious to be taken too seriously.*
Ive been reading the comments posted, and im not entirely sure why there is so much backlash against a distro like caldera being "closed" as a complete final distribution. As far as i can see this can only lead to good things, ie linux on the desktop being taken seriously. If a company can produce a good clean distro and generate sales to boost themselves, receive good reviews, this can only be good for linux?
This slash post is in violation of the proper use of "eh" and had not been approved by Canadians for use in this format. You will be forced to remove it or face our most potent weapon. Yes, that does mean that if you refuse to remove the offending "eh" we will send our PM to talk to you... and you know what thats like!
An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
Caldera Linux 3.1 is known to *HATE* via/amd chipsets and won't install on a majority of these systems.
Dunno how that got around there testing.
Caldera has always been a nice OS, one of the first to get accepted at major retailers, at the same time being one of the first to get rejected as of lately.
LIcensing, Pricing and Support are all out of whack, and the newsgroup is simply pathetic. I hope Caldera spends some time to turn it around or just sell applications for linux as a whole instead of there own distro
Caldera OpenLinux and the KDE project have two major things in common.
1) Both have been savagely attacked by Slashdot readers and members of the OSS community. Half were upset at KDE's licensing/GPL options because KDE wasn't make-a-buck friendly for companies wanting more restrictive licenses and retail presence. Meanwhile, the other half are upset at Caldera's licensing/GPL options because Caldera is making-a-buck with more restrictive licenses and retail presence. Neither is violating anyone else's license. You can never win.
2) Both Caldera OpenLinux and KDE are superior products to other alternatives. KDE just works (unlike GNOME, which is *still* a hodgepodge that varies according to distributor and is difficult to get working in the real world, even from Ximian). Similarly, I used Caldera OpenLinux on my own systems and on those I administer from version 1.2 until version 2.4 specificially because of the quality of the product. OpenLinux 1.3 was the most usable distribution of its era, bar none, and I tried them all. I've finally switched away to Red Hat 7.1 recently when needing to upgrade from eDesktop 2.4 because of mild discomfort about these licensing issues, but it was a tough decision.
Red Hat 7.1 doesn't come close. As I was evaluating options, I also tried Debian 2.2, Corel 2.0, Slackware 8, S.u.S.E. 7.2 and Mandrake 8.0.Each had its own strenghths and weaknesses... but nothing compared to the user experience with eDesktop 2.4. If the current Caldera release is similar in any way to their past releases it, like KDE, will just work out of the box -- and the user won't have to worry about a lot of those little annoying details that typically mar Linux use (broken printcap after install, broken XF86Config after install, misconfigured services, etc., etc., etc.)
I think Caldera's OpenLinux and KDE are two of the most underappreciated products to have come out of the open source community, and it's a shame.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Your grandma should put her dentures back in then
she'd make more sense.
I have been using gentoo now since rc5 was first released. It's really good. A little buggy, but what do you expect from a pre 1.0 release?
The portage system is a great idea and they are fixing bugs with every release. Rc6 is definitely usable.
Can't hurt to check it out, right? The only real problem is the install, but if you know chroot, there isn't a problem.
Yeah, but I sort of .. grew out of it.
So tell me my friend when was last time you modified your Apache to do something unique ?
Please, don't make me laugh - "being able to change the source" my ass.
Sure, you can modify some small perl script but trying to change things like Apache without breaking stuff , requires a lot of coding experience and time.
It is completely out of your league...
I gave up on them as a reasonable/viable company when they started whining about MS-DOS and attempted that lame lawsuit against MS over it.
What happened to Caldera's "OpenDOS" since then? Well, it's neither free nor open, and apparently they don't even support the thing anymore.
I've been doing some research on alternatives to MS-DOS in the last week or two, because I'm trying to build a bare-bones system that boots from a small hard drive into a Citrix client. Sure, this could be done with Linux - but you still have to boot into X and deal with configuring systems differently depending on their video card. A DOS boot makes the most sense for this task. I finally discovered the FreeDOS project (http://www.freedos.org). Their latest beta is still pretty rough around the edges, but the thing works well enough to boot my ICA client - so I'm happy.
http://www.linuxarkivet.nu/mlists/mandrake-securit y/0103/msg00028.html
http://www.sfu.ca/~siegert/linux-security/msg00030 .html
In Win2K you'll get a segfault with that code. Or are you referring to Win9x, whose design goal wasn't stability but compatibility? Qualify correctly what you say.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
What really bothers me about Gentoo (which is great, don't get me wrong) is the lack of good binary packages. The official policy seems to be compile-based. However, my poor 300MHz machine really can't handle compiling KDE every time a new release comes out, and sometimes you just want to type rpm -i *.rpm instead of waiting for a 15 minute compile to complete. If Gentoo had RPM integration (or maybe dpkg or something) then it could really be a force in the distro world.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I don't mind software that is released under a non-Free Open Source license (like IPfilter) - although those packages do have limited benefit to the community because of distribution restrictions.
As you you've said, IPFilter is non-free, but it isn't Open Source either, nor is it compatible with the BSD distribution guidelines. If you don't have a problem with having access to the source code under such a license, maybe Microsoft Windows 2000 and PocketPC would appeal? They also have similar licenses, although the PocketPC one is much more available than the Windows 2000 one.
A similar story exists for TinyDNS, Qmail, and Pine.
And why the exception for relational databases? Ever think there might be more? TinyDNS is good software. What about games? Desktops secretaries could use? Or even small business servers? (those guys won't ever learn vi and its not like many distributions with the exception of esmith are making anything close to a non-Unix user friendly server distribution.
Use the best tool for the job. If you don't, you shouldn't be employed. If that's Open Source, great, but sometimes it won't be. Make decisions based on technical and factual information rather than religion. That's what you're paid to do.
About two years ago when I tried OpenLinux 2.2d, there was a nice text-based admin tool called 'LISA.' It was very similar to YAST, however I don't believe it had package maintenance utilities like YAST does.
I switched from SUSE 6.4 to Debian awhile back, so I haven't used it's update tool (I'm guessing that's a new 7.x feature). As far as I know, Debian's apt system still works the best for most people, but before I get offtopic on that, I'll end.
void women (int money, time_t time);
SuSE wins in terms of default telnet and FTP servers, but again I suspect this is a design decision. Although not enabled by default,
Good. Telnet is telnet, and FTP servers generally need a lot of patching (unless you're using a good one like PureFFTPd). Clicking a switch to turn something on is more effective than reinstalling abox once its compromised.
Both are very easy to configure and I find the ability to telnet and FTP to my work PC when working from home one of the strongest selling points of Linux generally.
No. Not Telnet. Telnet is used to
* talk to printers
* troubleshoot servers based on ASCII text based protocols
* talk to cheap and shitty routers
It is not used to:
* login to any PC through the internet
* log in to an pc per se
* Talk to routers who use SSH.
Telnet sends password in clear text. Someone can run a variety of programs that simply see your password - no decryptioon required. SSH is:
* Encrypted
* Compressed
* Capable of running GUI appss easier than Telnet can
* Able to transfer files
* As ubiquitous as Telnet is - clients and servers avaliable for every platform
MS including a Telnet server in W2K pro (using either Telnet or the broken NTLM auth method) was one of the major downsides to that OS.
Java has proven itself plenty fast for server side stuff, but screen I/O has been a downfall. If Caldera has a really good client gui JRE, it might be worth the $59 for those using Together, Forte and homegrown Java gui apps. (I'm still coding in Vim).
Of course, I haven't really seen 1.4 on Redhat yet. It's in its second beta now, and it's supposed to have much improved graphics performance.
Now this is assuming the Caldera guy wasn't pissing in my ear--I can't find any mention of a custom JRE on their web site.
We should all keep in mind this simple truth: Linux is dying.
You don't need to be Kreskin to predict Linux's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Linux because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Linux. As many of us are already aware, Linux continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Redhat, one of the most profitable Linux companies, has barely managed to produce a profitable quarterly report. Other less fortunate Linux companies either leave the Linux arena or wither away and die. Indeed, as Microsoft and many other companies have repeatedly stated, there is no money in free software. There is no money in Linux.
Linux also suffers from severe licensing issues. With Linux's licence being compared to everything from Pacman to a cancer, it is obvious that Linux's licence is severely flawed and will hamper Linux's usage in the future. Also, since Linux is burdened with a viral license, everything Linux comes into contact with will have Linux's licence forced upon it. This causes many companies and many end users to avoid Linux like the death-bringing plague it is. Why not just change the licence and sidestep the issues? The reason is that because Linux is developed in such an unstructured and uncontrolled fashion, most authors of Linux code are unknown and cannot be consulted, making a licence change virtually impossible. This extreme inflexibility is yet another reason why Linux has very little time left to live. Linux can do nothing but look on, into it's impending doom.
As Cmdrtaco, webmaster of Slashdot.org, the Linux fan site, and one of the most well known Linux evangelists recently stated, "Linux won't ever be mainstream". What caused such a prominent Linux supporter to make such a forboding statement? Initially, it may appear to be nothing more than a brash statement made in a moment of annoyance, however, a closer look reveals a much more severe and ingrained problem. The problem is Linux's lack of support by hardware companies. This is indeed a very severe problem for Linux and is a very major contribution to Linux's terminal future. Hardware companies, like software companies, are forced, by Linux's viral licence, to keep their distance and not support Linux for fear of losing their IP to the public domain. This lack of hardware support further reduces Linux's already dwindling userbase, therefore causing even less companies to support Linux. Linux is spiraling into oblivion and nothing can stop it. As IDG, the renouned market analysis company stated recently, by 2005, Linux's userbase will have diminished to the point where Linux will be nothing more than a historic artifact, relevant only to computer historians.
Without support from software companies and without support from hardware companies, Linux has no future. Linux cannot survive and will die a death of neglect.
All major surveys show that Linux has steadily declined in market share. Linux is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Linux is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyists, dabblers, and dilettantes. Linux continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Linux is dead.
I tried to ask Caldera's Open Source Architect, Ronald Joe Record, on a LUG mailing list, what specific copyrighted property in the downloadable Caldera 3.1 Workstation ISO image its restrictive "EULA.TXT" language refers to. (See: http://lists.svlug.org/archives//smaug/2001q3/0001 22.html)
The CD image includes, in file LICENSE.TXT, what's supposed to be a complete list of who owns copyright on which codebase, and what sort of licence it's under. None seemed to qualify -- and Caldera couldn't claim restrictive rights under a theory of compilation copyright, as long as their CD included third-party GPLed code, which it does.
So, I asked Ronald if he wouldn't mind specifying what the very restrictive EULA.TXT stuff applies to.
His response? He immediately de-subscribed, and completely ducked the question.
Any other Caldera representatives care to address the subject?
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
2.4.2 was the latest kernel available at the time of release, and since there have been no gaping security holes and that kernel has proven fairly stable, there's no reason to mess with a good thing.
I beg to differ. There are lots of reported data corruption bugs in all 2.4 kernels prior to 2.4.6:
Linux 2.4.3 ate my hard drive. I booted up, got weird problems...ran an fsck, it failed, saying the superblock was invalid. I specified one of the alternate superblocks...it kept giving me errors. I piped yes into it and let it run. When it was done, my entire filesystem was in little pieces in /lost+found.
That's the most important problem, but there are also a couple reported crashes I believe and, of course, the VM problems (which are still an issue. 2.4.10 has a huge patch to the VM system.)
I've been pretty disappointed by Linux 2.4 so far and at this point I'd say I still would not run it on a server. (I use FreeBSD, but Linux 2.2, though old, is good as well.)
I'm used to running bleeding edge stuff on my desktop, though. I'm not too upset about the losing my Linux partition thing, since I had most stuff backed up elsewhere.
(In fairness to Linux, I have a VIA686b South Bridge Controller. I think that's the chipset they had the most trouble with by far, though from the descriptions, not all of these bugs are related to it.)
I can't say I agree with you. When I tried Caldera before I was quite impressed by their support of Novell Netware and that is what I need at work.
The Linux client for Netware that came with OpenLinux 2.3 rocked! Browsing our servers through the NDS tree was seamless, and it way surpassed the ncputils package that comes with Redhat.
This feature alone is worth the licensing to me and I suspect for the millions of others who stayed with Netware for its superior file and print services. And everyone knows that Unix is best for application servers so the question was how to combine Netware & Linux on the desktop. Caldera seems to be the answer.
OTOH, the hardware support for laptops in 2.3 was not as good as Redhat and I ran into a couple of apps that wouldn't work right on Caldera but were certified for Redhat. So I can't wait to get this newly released version and give it a whirl.
Also since Netware 6 has Native File Access which allows Linux/Windows/Mac Pc's to connect using their basic builtin protocols and clients, the window of opportunity may be closing for the Linux Netware client to gain a toe hold in the enterprise environment.