Slashdot Mirror
Why Mandrake is Too Cool for UnitedLinux
An anonymous reader says "Mandrake's lastest community (spam) newsletter contains their explanation as to why they won't join in on UnitedLinux. Besides the obvious geek-fun of rolling their own distro, they claim that the underlying idea of UnitedLinux is based on a flawed comparison to the Unix world of the 80's. " I think the whole UnitedLinux thing is lame- the distros that want
to be compatible already are. UL is just the 2nd tier distros trying to get attention and ink away from the "evil forces" in North Carolina. I'll just
stick to the best distribution and watch
the fun from afar ;)
That's why I'll become France's next president. Merci
suck the corn out of my shit, Mandrake
aItis10pmDoyouknowwhereyourkarmaisRightLetusgetsta /rtedInordertogetmaximumkarmafromSlashdotpostingyo /ucanfollowafewsimpleguidelinesTheUniversityyougot /oRegardlessofwhereyouactuallystudysayingthatyoure /atMITautomagicallygainsyou2Slashdotliketheglorifi /edstudentnoticeboardthatitishasaspecialplaceinits /heartforanythingfromMITwhetheritbeateddybearstuff /edwithaswitchorsomewankerswrappingayellowbannerwi /thelvishtextaroundthemaindomeEvenifyoudidntgotoun /iversityqualifyeverycommentwithaMyprofessortoldme /tobaskinthewarmfuzzyglowof2InsightfulLinuxThebasi /softheSlashdotExperienceClaimingyourunLinuxalsoge /tsyou1InterestingItdoesntreallymatterifyouvenever /actuallyinstalleditoryourRedHatboxstilldoesnthave /PPPrunningafter2yearsofreadingFAQsTheimportantbit /isYourepartofthecommunityYoucanbatheintherefelect /edgloryofyearsofshoddybuggycodeYouareexemptfromth /eMicrosoftpenaltyseebelowasofcourseyourWin98insta /llisonlyusedforplayinggamesAndreadingSlashdotAndu /singMSWordAndPhotoshopAndMicrosoftSlashbotsandthe /editorshateMicrosoftPeriodUseofasymbolineveryiter /ationoftheirtrademarksgetsyoua4FunnyEventhoughiti /sfarfromoriginalitstillmanagestoraiseagrininthose /peoplereadingSlashdotbetweenepisodesofCowboyBebop /Youwillgeta1FlamebaitorTrollforanypostevenhinting /thatMicrosoftproductsareanygoodusefulintuitiveuse /rfriendlyYouwillalsoquicklybeshotdownwithrepliesa /bouthowgoodGNOMEandKDEarewhichwilltheninturnerupt /intoaflamewarFreedomPrivacyYROThebreadandbutterof /SlashdotItfitsinsublimelywiththewholeLinuxthingYo /ullgeta3InformativeforanypostcontainingtheBenFran /klinquoteaboutsacrificingessentiallibertyItmakesn /odifferencethatthequoteistotallyirrelevantinthemo /dernworldHeyyouvegotkarmaMiscredtingthequotewilln /otendupinakarmapenaltyashasbeendemonstratedcountl /esstimesYouwillgainextrakarmaifyoumakereferenceto /yourexperiencesofbeingwiretappedbytheNSAandthrowi /nginavaguelinktoEchelonblackhelicoptersorTinFoilH /atLinuxIncludealinktotheFirstAmendmentfora1Intere /stingmodGiveyourselfapatonthebackifyoumanagetoinc /ludesomeextraragingparanoiawithnoevidencetobackit /upNiceBSDIfyouuseitdontmentionitonSlashdotMostoft /heLinuxusingfriendlesswondersthatinhabitSlashdotw /ouldntknowqualityandstabilityifitstrolledupandkic /kedtheminthethroatwithasize13HiTecMagnumbootAnyme /ntionofhowaFirewallrunningOpenBSDwithpfisfarsuper /iortoLinuxspatheticofferingwillsoonseeyouas1Troll /MuchlikethepostyourereadingnowYearningforyesterye /arAlthoughmostcommentsarewrittenbyfirstyearwannab /eCSgurustudentsorlinkstogoatsecxthereisstillthefa /lloutdregsofthedotcomboomlurkingaroundslashdotYou /canget5Insightfulfortellinghowyouweresobadlytreat /edafterthebubbleburstWhiningaboutthelackofjobswhe /reyougetpaidtofirefoamdartsatcolleaguesisagoodsta /rtDontforgettomentionhowyouvenowbeenoutofworkform /onthsItstartsaImabouttograduateandtheresnothinggo /ingfuckfestwhichcanspilloverintohundredsofcomment /sAlthoughallthestaffwhowereanygoodsimplygothiredi /ntoanothercompanyitmakesGoodKarmaSensetohidethefa /ctthatyourpassingfamiliaritywithPerlandCsimplycan /tgetyouajobThisisalsoaprimeopportunitytoshowyoure /gregiouspersonalityasSlashdotrewardsarroganceande /
While the linux standard base is a great idea. United Linux is just dumb. Why don't they just merge?
>obvious geek-fun of rolling their own distro
Aren't they just a Redhat distro with some a few mods? If Mandrake is more than that, please explain.
Best distro eh? Thats just *begging* to begin a flame war!
Personally I like the idea of United Linux. There's no reason that all Linux venders can't use the same base for rpm compatibility, etc. It'll hapen one way or another. Do you want one company to control the standards, or a shared effort?
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
"Lastest"?
K, we see the money your parents gave you for grammar school went for a good cause....
I for one think this is a good idea. I'd rather have 5-6 distros competiting (while still being somewhat compatable) than to have one solid standard. We all know what happenes when competition ceases. Not that the idea of United Linux is a bad idea, I just think that there need to be choices besides it.
Why is it spam if it contained information useful enough to be posted on slashdot?
under Linus, indivisible.
--
E_NOSIG
I think this decision will not only please Mandrake's huge user-base (or at least those who give a sh*t), but also earn Mandy a little more respect from those who constantly refer to it as a Fisher-Price distro.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
Be Patriotic, Smoke Amerikan grown marijuana, not treasonous imports !!!!
;-), Homer mentions to
Courtesy of About 420
Connotative Use/Meaning
420 is a phreak s (and not just a hippie s) favorite number for a
variety of reasons, or maybe for no reason at all, but colloquially
the number says pot -- let s smoke pot, or someone s smoking
pot, or gee, i really like pot, or time to smoke pot, either by
time (4:20 a.m. or p.m.), date (April 20th), or otherwise (e.g. State
Route 420). April 20th at 4:20 is marked by annual events in
Mount Tamalpais, CA (an informal gathering); Marin Conty, CA
(the 420 Hemp Fest); Ann Arbor, MI (the Hash Bash); and
Washington, D.C. (buildup towards the July 4th Smoke-In).
Original Source(s)
Conventional wisdom: The most common tale is that 420 is the
police radio code or criminal code (and therefore the police call)
in certain part(s) of California (e.g. in Los Angeles or San
Francisco) for having spotted someone consuming cannabis
publicly, i.e. pot smoking in progress; that local cannabis users
picked up on the code and began celebrating the number temporally
(esp. 4:20 a.m., 4:20 p.m., and April 20); that the number became
nationally popularized in the late 1980s and, more ferverently, in
the early- to mid-1990s; and is colloquially applied to a variety of
relaxed and/or inspired contexts, including not only pot
consumption but also a good time more generally (in contrast to
the drug war surrounding).
Conventions are legends: 420 is not police radio code for
anything, anywhere. Checks of criminal codes (including those of
the City of San Francisco, the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles
County, the State of California, and the federal penal code) suggest
that the origin is neither Californian nor federal (the two best
guesses). For instance, California Penal Code 420 defines as a
misdemeanor the hindrance of use (obstructing entry) of public
lands, and California Family Code 420 defines what constitutes a
wedding ceremony (Marco). One state does come close: The
Illinois Department of Revenue classifies the Alcoholic Liquor Act
under Part 420, and the Cannabis and Controlled Substances Tax
Act are next, under Part 428. (RB 5/19/99)
True story?: According to Steven Hager, editor of High Times,
the term 420 originated at San Rafael High School, in 1971,
among a group of about a dozen pot-smoking wiseacres who
called themselves the Waldos. The term 420 was shorthand for the
time of day the group would meet, at the campus statue of Louis
Pasteur, to smoke pot. ``Waldo Steve, a member of the group who
now owns a business in San Francisco, says the Waldos would
salute each other in the school hallway and say ``420 Louis! The
term was one of many invented by the group, but it was the one
that caught on. ``It was just a joke, but it came to mean all kinds of
things, like `Do you have any? or `Do I look stoned? he said.
``Parents and teachers wouldn t know what we were talking about.
The term took root, and flourished, and spread beyond San Rafael
with the assistance of the Grateful Dead and their dedicated cohort
of pot-smoking fans. The Waldos decided to assert their claim to
the history of the term after decades of watching it spread, mutate
and be appropriated by commercial interests. The Waldos contacted
Hager, and presented him with evidence of 420 s history, primarily
a collection of postmarked letters from the early 70s with lots of
mention of 420. They also started a Web site, waldo420.com. ``We
have proof, we were the first, Waldo Steve said. ``I mean, it s not
like we wrote a book or invented anything. We just came up with a
phrase. But it s kind of an honor that this emanated from San
Rafael. Maria Alicia Gaura for the San Francisco Chronicle,
4/20/00 p. A19; and thanks to Noah Cole for the submission
Alternate explanations
There are a variety of other explanations, all much more interesting
than police code, and many plausible. Some are more likely uses
of the 420/hemp connection rather than sources of it, such as the
score for the football game in Fast Times at Ridgement High,
42-0.
Known Myths: It isn t police code (see above). There are 315
chemicals in marijuana, not 420. And although tea time in
Amsterdam is rumored to be 4:20, it is actually 5:30 (Gerhard
den Hollander).
Sixties Songs: For instance, Bob Dylan s famous Rainy Day
Women #12 and 35 is a possible reference, or source --
12x35=420. And Stephen Stills wrote (and Crosby Stills Nash
& Young performed) a song 4+20 (first recorded 7/16/69,
released on Deja Vu 3/11/70) about an 84-year-old
poverty-stricken man who started and finished with nothing.
(Thanks to Sherry Keel 12/6/98.) Dylan aslo mentions 4 and
20 windows in The Balland of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest
(on John Wesley Harding).
Older Verse: But 420 in poetry is older than that - Greg
Keller notes the old nursery rhyme line, four and twenty
black birds baked in a pie. Revelation 5:14 (in the King
James Version of the Christian Bible) reads, And the four
beasts said A-Men. And the four and twenty elders fell down
and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. (Travis
Spurley 2/15/99) And in Midnight s_Children, Salman
Rushdie wrote, Inevitably, a number of these children failed
to survive. Malnutrition, disease and the misfortunes of
everyday life had accounted for no less than four hundred and
twenty of them by the time I became conscious of their
existence; although it is possible to hypothesize that these
deaths, too, had their purpose, since 420 has been, since time
immemorial, the number associated with fraud, deception and
trickery. (Comet 2/14/98) Comet s best guess is that this
refers to something in Indian mythology or numerology, since
the book is set in India and frequently involves Indian history,
culture, and religion. Given the high interest in Eastern
religion among the phish/dead community, this seems a likely
origin of 420 s current significance.
Temporal Significance: Hands on analog clock at 4:20 look
like position of doobie dangling from mouth Larry in
Tuscan and Alex Mack 5/19/99). Disruptive students are out
of detention and safetly away from school by 4:20, also
rumored to be the time that you should dose to be peaking
when the Dead went on stage Hart. The Waldos were a
group of teens back in the 70 s that lived in San Rafael, CA.
420 was the way they talked about pot in front of teachers,
non-smoking family members etc. Also it was the time of day
they could just go relax, and get baked. (PhunkCellar)
Jamaicans purportedly worked till 4 then walked home then
lit up. They would talk 420 like our parents talked about after
5. That s when partying began Larry in Tuscan). Albert (not
Abbie) Hofmann supposedly first encountered LSD at 4:20
p.m. on 4/19/1943 (Bart Coleman citing Storming Heaven by
Jay Stevens, recommended by Mickey Hart in Planet Drum).
Surrealist painter Miro was born April 20, 1893. And
www.filmspeed.com says the propoganda film Reefer
Madness has a copyright date of April 20, 1936 (i.e. 4/20).
(Patrick Woolford)
Misc: Could be that it comes from hydroponics, the practice
of cultivating plants in water often used by indoor marijuana
cultivators, since 4 is used for H on a calculator (420/H20).
(Nick Lowe 3/30/00) The number 80 (eight) is quatre vingt
(pronounced cah-truh vahn), meaning four (times} twenty.
Dan Nijjar 1/27/00 (No connection yet between the number
80 and pot. A quarter pound is roughly 120 grams, rounding
quarter-ounces to 7.5.) The titanic was supposed to arrive
4/20/1912. (Thanks to RB.) Perhaps the heavy use of vt420
terminals in the Berkeley area is to blame? (BTW, 420 in
binary code is 110100100.)
Ubiquitous?
Now there s a 420 Pale Ale. One of the late-97/early-98 Got
Milk ads featured a character eating cookies without milk and
then passing a sign that reads Next Rest Area 420 miles (as Ross
Bruning). Reportedly, all of the clocks in the movie Pulp Fiction
are stuck on 4:20. Shirts with the number 420 on the red-and-blue
interstate highway shield (Interstate 420?) have show up on the
sitcom Will and Grace (Paul Risenhoover 5/14/99) and in several
videos. UPS labelling software has a 420 postal code legend for
next-day/2-day deliveries (which is how Phish tickets are sent).
(Jack Lebowitz 10/3/98) MTV s 1997 Viewer s Choice Award (for
the MTV Video Awards) was decided by calls to
1-800-420-4MTV. And by May of 1998, the number was
appearing in so many ads (eg Copenhagen 5/14/98 Rolling Stone
p54, Corvette p55 5/98 Car & Driver) that its presence is
presumed to be intentional. Many songs are around 4 minutes 20
seconds long (since many songs fall between 2:30 and 5:30),
including for example Pink Floyd s A Great Day for Freedom (on
The Division Bell, 1994), the Foo Fighters My Hero, and
Smokin from Boston s first album. There have also been some
420 references on The Simpsons. In the re-run episode aired on
April 20th, 1999 at a special time (probably in honor of those
college students staying in the holiday spirit
Flanders that Barney s birthday is April 20th. Also, the jackpot sign
in one part of the casino says $420,000. There are a couple less
concrete ones, but these two have to be legit, especially since they
decided to air THAT particular episode on 4/20/99. (Submitted by
Matt Meehan 4/21/99) And (as of Fall 99) the 60 free minutes that
Working Assets Long Distance offers, at the 7 cents per minute
rate, is $4.20 free. There s even a band named 420, and another
names . In the first fifteen pages of Karel Capek s novel War with
the Newts, a man diving under wonder stayed down for four
minutes and twenty seconds. Grant Garstka 1/6/00 At the
suggested retail price ($3.96) and Michigan (6%) sales tax, a deck
of Uno cards costs $4.20. Nic Boris 4:20 marks the first downbeat
of the drums in Led Zeppelin s epic Stairway to Heaven. (Dan
Harris) The bill authorizing force after the World Trade Center
attacks of 9/11/01 passed 420 to 1, and news reports in following
months noted many times that there are (or were then, anyway) 420
airports in the U.S. Allan Morris And don t forget that Adolf Hitler
was born on April 20, macabely celebrated (or at least
referenced) via the Columbine High School shootings.
Phish-related Occurances
Whatever the origin, the number appears frequently... For the
summer 1997 tour, TicketMaster service charges were $4.20. In
the Fall 1997 Doniac Schvice Dry Goods section, a limited edition
Pollack poster printed on 100% hemp is order number 420P. The
Great Went was 420 miles from Boston (former home of Phish).
The official logo includes 4 gills and 20 bubbles (Gringo
11/12/98). As of 6/15/97, including covers and originals, Phish
had performed a total of 420 songs (thought its 486 by 4/24/98).
(David Steinberg). Lawnboy is 420megs of memory. Patrick
Walker Phish s The Vibration of Life underlies a whirling loop
with Seven Beats per second (which makes 420 beats per minute.)
Trey has used the altered line woke up at 4:20 in Makisupa
Policeman, which also often indirectly celebrates 420ing, e.g. by
mention of goo balls. One of the funniest shirts around takes light
jabs at both the 4:20 phenomenon and the rumored evolution
(collapse?) of the Phish.Net (especially rec.music.phish) from
being Gamehendge to Flamehendge, and beyond. The first day of
the Great Went started at 4:20 (with Makisupa Policeman. (The
second day started late, at 4:37.) Noah Cole The first single from
Slip Stitch and Pass was played on WBCN 10/14/97 at 4:20 pm.
An uproar at 12/31/96 can be heard on tape during the 2001, in
response to an enormous digital clock (which was counting down
to midnight) reaching 11:55:40 and reading -4:20. (Yoda)
During the 9-12-00 2001, Trey hits the first riff right at 4:20 into
the intro jam. (Cal 2/25/01) Some mail order tickets for the 1997
New Year s run were in section 420. The first Mass Pike toll
leaving Oswego was $4.20. (Camille Heath ) And the standard
shipping for The Phish Companion through Amazon was
originally $4.20.
420 Shows: Phish performed on April 20 in 1989, 1990, 1991,
1993, and 1994. The first day of the Great Went started at 4:20,
although that was called a soundcheck by Trey after three songs.
The Jazzfest Harry Hood 4-26-96 started at about 4:20 reported by
Trevor. At Big Cypress, David Bowie was playing at 4:20 a.m.
And the one event during the hiatus (10/8/00 - ?) featuring all
four members - for Jason Colton s wedding - was 12/1/01, 420
from: http://www.phish.net/faq/n420.html:
aAwhilebackDonHenleycreatedanalbumcalledBuildingth .ePerfectBeastHisfirstsoloalbumitsurprisedmanywith .trackslikeSunsetGrillAllSheWantsToDoIsDancemyfavo .riteDrivingWithYourEyesClosedandJonKatzsfavoriteB .oysofSummerIwaslisteningtothisalbumonillegallyrip .pedMP3swhilereadingtheSlashdottrollsandstartedbra .instormingwhatwouldmaketheperfecttrollThisarticle .servesasadirectedintroductiontobuildingtheperfect .trollFirstweneedtodefinetrollingThisisharderthani .tsoundsbecauseeveryonehastheirowndefinitionofatro .llorbettertheirowndefinitionofagoodtrollIamgoingt .ousemultipledefinitionstocreateaverybroadidealoft .hetermtrollAnypostthatmeetsONEofthedefinitionsbel .owisconsideredatrollaAmessagewidelyregardedasanan .noyancebAmessagewhichinsultstheeditorswithnoregar .dtomeritcAmessagewhichflamesanotheruserfortheirvi .ewsdAnymessagewhichisdesignedtoenragethestandards .lashdotuserForthepurposesofthispostagoodtrollison .ethatspawnsmanyangryresponsesThereareothersidesof .trollingsuchascrapfloodingwhichdonotgenerateanyre .sponsesusuallyThesesortsoftrollsareoutofthescopeo .fthisarticleThereare6dimensionsofagoodtrollannoya .ncearguabilitysubtletytopicalitylogicalityandperm .eanceByNOmeansshouldagoodtrolluseonlyonedimension .althoughsomedimensionsareinherentlycontradictoryu .singasmanyaspossiblewillresultinagoodtrollAnnoyan .ceThisistheallstarofthetrollspectrumRacialcomment .spagewideninglengthingmisinformationderagatorycom .mentsetcallareconsideredanannoyanceButbecarefulTh .ecommonpitfallistheannoyanceisusedtofrequentlyand .tooloudlySubtletyisanecessityifyouaregoingtouseth .iswithanysortofsuccessreadmoreaboutthisbelowHerea .resomeexamplesofgoodandbadannoyancesBadYoustupidf .uckingniggerImgoingtokickyourfaggotassifIeverseey .ouyoushitfacecocksuckinganimalThiswillbemoddeddow .nimmediatelyandwillprobablynotberespondedtoThisme .ssagewilllargelybeignoredthuslimitingthetrollaffe .ctPostingfactualinaccuraciesisgreatwhencombinedwi .thannoyancetheSlashdotswillfalloverthemselvescorr .ectingyoureverymoveGoodItspostslikethesethatquest .iontheeducationsystemofAmericaIfyouwerepayinganya .ttentionatschoolyouwouldknowthattheSouthwontheCiv .ilWarbecauseoftheirviewsnoslaveryItwasAbrahamLinc .olnslaststandatGettysburgthatcausedSlaverytogoawa .yMakingreferencestoyoureducationasproofthatyouare .rightisexcellentespeciallywheninyourtrollyoumakei .tobviousthatyoudonthaveanyBadIstudiedthistopicing .reatdepthwhenwritingmyPhDthesisatMITAsitturnsoutt .helimitingfactorofsortingfunctionwithcompletelyra .ndomizeddataGoodOhItookaclassaboutthisattheDeVryI .nstituteAccordingtothereseptionistnoticeintention .allybadspellingtheintegralofex2isexsoitsgottoberi .ghtArguabilityPostssuchasYoufuckingfaggotImgoingt .okillyouhasnoelementofarguabilityYouwanttopostavi .ewinaninflammatorywaythatwillinciteagreatargument .ThereisarightwayandawrongwaytodoingthisUsuallyify .ouareoutrightcursingattheposteroreditoritsthewron .gwayExamplesBadYouworthlesspieceofhorseshitYourvi .ewsarewrongjackassGoodThisstudypostlinktomostlyir .relevantandofftopicstudyindicatesthereisastrongco .rrelationbetweendevianceandLinuxusersDrawingillog .icalconclusionsbasedonincorrectstatementsisagreat .waytoinstateanerdriotExampleGoodWhenESRsaidthatWi .ndowsislosingclientelleheusedintentionallybadgram .marwhichisinherentproofthathisidealsareflawedPerm .eanceQuestionIfatrollpostsatrollandnoonereadsitis .itstillatrollAnswerNoAtrollcanonlyhavesomuchlonge .vityIcallthisprinciplepermeancePermeanceisjudgedb .ythenumberofpeoplewhowillseeandreadapostandtoales .serextentrespondtoitGoodformattinggrammarandspell .ingallcontributetoapostspermeancebuttherealfactor .iscontentMostofyouspendalotoftimereadingat1presum .ablysoyouwillknowthatafairamountofracistandantise .meticcommentsarepostedMostSlashdotuserswillnotsee .thesebecausetheyareat1klercksPLPandPWPareultimate .lyafailurebecausefewseethemTomaximizepermeanceyou .haveto1Soundlikeyounowwhatyouaretalkingabout2Soun .dlikeyouhaveastakeinyourpointofviewmaeningyoucare .aboutwhatyouthinkand3Expressitwithouthomophobiaan .ysortofracismanddiscriminationYouwillseethattroll .sat1andeven2usethisprincipleYouwillseethattrollsa .t0and1donotusethisprincipleThisbringsustoFirstFun .damentalTheoremofTrollingAnonymousCowardsbydefini .tionrarelysucceedinpostingagoodtrollSecondFundame .ntalTheoremofTrollingIfanACsucceedsinagoodtrollit .wouldevenbebetterifitwerepostedat1or2bydefaultSub .tletyCertainpostsSCREAMThisisatrollPleaseignoreit .ThesearenotsuccessfultrollsAsatrollyoureveryurgei .stoscreamYOUFUCKINGFAGGOTHOWCANYOUTHINKTHEWAYYOUD .OtotheSlashbothomosResistthisateverycostYouneedto .diplomaticallyinsultthemItshardIknowbutitwillresu .ltinsuccessGOODPHRASESYoushouldknowbynowthatHaven .tyoulearnedanythingfromeventWhatastereotypicalvie .wWasthispostsarcasticIcantbelievethelevelofignora .nceofthatpointofviewTopicalityThisisanobrainerand .thereforeImnotgoingtospendmuchtimediscussingitWhy .doyouthinkBSDisDyingtrollsrarelygetresponseswhent .heyarepostedunderoneofJonKatzsarticlesLogicalityD .idImakethatwordupProbablyButitsprincipleisstillim .portantuseeverylogicalfallacythatyouknowofwhenwri .tingtrollsJumptoillogicalconclusionsMisquoteormis .representparentspostswhenrespondingMakereferences .tostudieslinkingthemtoa404notfoundpageYougettheid .eaThisoneisnthardtointroducebutitswildlysuccessfu .lingettingSlashcockresponsesThisisabriefintroduct .iontothegoodtrollingSoonIwillpostanarticleaboutco .mbiningdimensionsandlookatsomegoodandbadtrollsint .
-pwpbot
Mandrake is simply the best distro out there. It doesn't get bogged down by "this package uses the wrong license" or "this is too cutting edge" or "this is too average user", either. They simply go out there and offer their users EVERYTHING in the linux world. I will always only install Mandrake.
And not becoming a part of United Linux is partly due to the above and partly due to their use of RPM. I think they're doing the right thing, and the United Linux people fill fall big time.
---gralem
UnitedLinux may result in less diverse practices and standards between the distributions, (or at least fewer of them,) but, as with any joint venture brought on by competitive pressure, sounds like a really good way for the constituent groups to argue about exactly WHAT becomes the standard and such. That kind of stagnation and bickering is not what needs to happen for success.
Joining under a common banner with common practices and standards is fine and dandy. Someday it might even be a Good Thing, but doing it because you're afraid of RedHat just doesn't seem healthy to me.
Sharpies don't just sniff themselves.
lets get that 3.0 / Woody out the door and show who really has the best dist :)
Terrorism: A response to the perceived threat of a capitalist society.
Linux: Supported by a devout group of fanatics dedicated to the cause.
Terrorism: Supported by a devout group of fanatics dedicated to the cause.
Linux: Seen by the rest of the world as a "fringe" operating system.
Terrorism: Seen by the rest of the world as a "fringe" group.
Linux: Attractive to those looking to destroy Microsoft and the software industry.
Terrorism: Attractive to those looking to destroy the USA and the rest of the infidels.
Linux: Recruits loners and outcasts into its loyal user-base.
Terrorism: Recruits loners and outcasts into its training camps.
Linux: Drew vast amounts of funding from supporters, with only ideological returns.
Terrorism: Drew vast amounts of funding from supporters, with only ideological returns.
I am not a fan of mandrake, but this is an extremely well-written document all the way through. I would like everyone to take note of the fact Mandrake seems to be committing in here to follow the LSB.. so that's good. One thing i wonder about though:
"In the same spirit, all software publishers should certify their products for a given version of the LSB (Linux Standard Base), not for a particular brand of Linux. Therefore, that software would work equally well with any Linux distribution that is in conformity with the LSB. "
Is this correct? The UnitedLinux people have been implying that they are somehow just the logical conclusion of the idea of the LSB, and in some way they will make things easier for developers-- i.e., less varied systems to test. Is this correct, or just misleading marketing? Are there any situations where it would be possible to certify a single binary for UnitedLinux, but not possible to certify a single binary for the LSB becuase the LSB is not extensive enough?
As a (relatively new) Linux user, my first distro was Mandrake 8.1. What's nice about Mandrake is that there are GUI interfaces for everything. I mean, I've been working with Solaris and HP/UX for years and writing perl scripts and scheduling cron jobs, but never had to deal with "admin-type" issues like drivers and installing software and hardware. I don't mind going in and trying to figure out command-line switches for various tools and turning system services on and off. Mandrake is getting pretty close to the ideal, particularly with its HardDrake detection and its unbelievably good disk partitioning tool. That's not to say that it's perfect - I still think the whole package/RPM thing needs a lot of refinement, and there are bugs like losing sound on my A3D card for no reason (a known KDE problem). In fact, there's the rub - when it comes to ease of use, Windows still has Mandrake and the rest of the Linuxes beat hands-down. But like I've said before - with 10% of the development budget of Windows products, and buy-in from major software developers in multimedia, Linux could be a Windows killer. Just like UnitedLinux is supposed to do. Therein lies the problem - do you take the distro with the currently closest emulation of Windows' ease-of-use and push it to effective completion, or do you go and pool development efforts to make all the rest of the distros good? My hope is that cooler heads and better attitudes prevail, because many Linux distros and the fate of Linux on the desktop lies in the next move made by all Linux companies.
That's "UNDER GNU/LINUS", dammmittt!!!
GRR!!
--RMS
I think this story is a firestarter. Debian is fucking old. Honestly. Get something minimal: slack.
:)
that said... everyone go here, and type in your name... it returns with a cyborg acronym
link
a
dmarien
Mandrake is one of the most widely used releases of Linux next to Red Hat. It would be a huge boost to United Linux if they joined, but it would not to much for Mandrake. It could even hurt them by losing followers that are not interested in UL.
"I'll just stick to the best distribution and watch the fun from afar ;)"
Well Taco, it might just happen that United Linux fits your needs perfectly then: http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2002/25/
I'll just stick to the best distribution and watch the fun from afar
should be
I'll just stick to the best distribution and watch the fun from afar
-... ---
I think that Mandrake tends to be an early adopter of new features... more so than other more conservative distro's like Red Hat. Whether that's a good thing or not is a whole other discussion- I personally think it's great. Mandrake was (one-of) the first to use a graphical installer, journaling file systems, etc. I imagine being part of a coalition like 'UnitedLinux' would entail restrictions as to what they can and cannot do. I'm glad that Mandrake has decided to continue choosing their own path.
Blender And Linux Fan
Best distro eh? Thats just *begging* to begin a flame war!
Well, yes, considering the best distros can be found here and here.
Personally I like the idea of United Linux. There's no reason that all Linux venders can't use the same base for rpm compatibility, etc. It'll hapen one way or another. Do you want one company to control the standards, or a shared effort?
I think the idea of UL is horribly flawed (and rather arrogant on its part), and the underlying premise of your reasoning for supporting UL equally flawed.
It isn't necessary to have One True packaging scheme, or One True distro to which all must maintain binary compatability, in order to effectively release binaries.
It has already been demonstrated by the folks at Blender, VMWare, Id, Loki, and others that it is quite possible to release binaries that are distribution agnostic. These real world examples, all of which install and run just fine on my Source Mage and Gentoo boxes, as well as my Debian, Mandrake, and Suse boxes, exist despite naysayers saying it isn't possible, and claiming that UL, or UL+Red Hat, bring a much needed cohesion to GNU/Linux.
Nonsense. It is an effort to impose a proprietary embrace-and-extended standard on a community that is doing just fine with consensual standards where they make sense, and a wide open, free and fair marktetplace that encourages choice everywhere else.
Telling commercial vendors that they should package their wares up as RPMs aimed at one (or two) distributions, when it is quite possible, and vastly more desirable, to package them up in standard tar.bz2 or tar.gz format along with a README listing the required libraries+versions, as well as a statically linked "last resort" fallback binary in parallel with the dynamically linked binary and thereby make them compatible with almost every distribution out there, is a terrible disservice to both the Linux community at large, and the vendors themselves who are being misled and excluding a big chunk of their target market.
This nonsense only serves the interests of the purveyors of UL, at the expense of virtually everyone else, and at the cost of our freedom of choice as GNU/Linux users. There is IMHO absolutely nothing good about this whatsoever, regardless of what your favorite distro happens to be, and even though I am not a Mandrake fan per se, I applaud them for their courage in standing up to this nonsense.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Why is the link for "best distribution" linked to www.debian.org? I though Gentoo's site was www.gentoo.org?
Eddy.WriteLinux.Com
Since mid-may, they've only been above the $1.00 mark once.
-- You are such a fucking fag
We Linux users know there is a problem with the current linux distributions. It's not only an interoperability problem, but a core one. We have came to a point where we knew we were going to get to, but we haven't tought of a solution because we were making linux ready for the mainstream. Now is the time to solve this, UnitedLinux is a start, but, as many of you, I dont like the approach they took.
...
We all know all the problems with RPM based distros, compatibility between them breaks a lot, and, even if you should have only one RPM for any distro, when we go to download an application we get a RH6.X.rpm, RH7.rpm, MDK8.rpm, MKD8.1.rpm, etc
I'm a Mandrake user, and I love it, but I have seen apt-get working, and I'm really impressed. I think apt-get is the right direction for a real package management tool for all distros. This is the direction package managment under Linux should be taking, and not creating commercial standards without atacking the core of the problem nor creating apt-like solutions or apt-like-frontends for rpm based solutions.
Conclution: LSB + apt-get should be mandatory to be able to call anything a Linux distribution. I know a lot of us would kill for apt-get to be the default package manager in all distributions.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
yeah great they did an installer and learnt how to compile src rpm's to what they like but I have yet to see them actually upgrade anything before redhat has put its fix's in
e.g. lets see them actually use gcc3.1 before redhat
regards
john jones
LINK CORRECTION ... [debian.org] ... should be ... [slackware.com]
heh!
But of course, that should actually read:
I'll just stick to the best distributions and watch the fun from afar
[grin]
Seriously, though, it is this choice that allows you to use and enjoy slackware, and me to use and enjoy Source Mage and Gentoo, others to use and enjoy Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, and so on, that makes the GNU/Linux community, and the Free Software community in general, so dynamic and so productive.
It is this choice the efforts like UL are trying to undermine, by promoting the myth that commercial and proprietary software vendors should (or need to) package their wares up for one or two reference distributions, rather than packaging them up in a distribution-agnostic manner as Blender, VMWare, Id, and Loki have done. This myth may serve the interests of the distribution promoters in question (in this case, UL), but it is a disservice to the GNU/Linux community as a whole by creating unneeded incompatabilities with other distributions and excercizing some degree of coercion for people to adopt the reference distribution instead. What is more, as other binary releases have proven, it is absolutly unnecessary.
It behooves us all, slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Mandrake, and Source Mage enthusiasts alike, to stand up and make sure the word gets out to commercial vendors that they can, and should, package their software in a distribution-agnostic manner so that they can target their entire marketplace, and not just a portion thereof, by packaging their software in standard tarballs, documenting precisely which versions of which dynamically linked libraries their software requires, and providing a statically linked binary-of-last-resort in parallel that will run regardless (this is important as distros mature and the old version of the software remains desirable anyway, so it not only allows any distro access to the software, it also provides insurance that the software will run on most any GNU/Linux distro 5 years hence, or even longer, long after the state of the art has moved a great deal further along).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I'd like to take issue with your statements: /opt directory. The config files are in /etc, maybe adding some lbiraries to /usr/lib, probably setting up some symbolic links in /usr/local/bin. For the most part Unix-style distributions keep everything in one directory, but so do most Windows apps.
1. Commercial software companies don't understand dynamic linking.
This statement might be correct in a few cases, but Linux does *not* provide a better development model than windows. The simple fact is that you can statically or dynamically link in *both* windows *and* linux. And ask anyone who's tried to update their libraries in Linux if it's easier than doing so in Windows.
2. Unix Filesystem
So, we've got files in, say the
As for a guarantee that a program "relocated" will or won't work on two systems, the same thing can be said for Linux/Unix.
3. Illegal cartel
I don't know where you're getting this, but you might as well claim that Steven King killed JFK. It's an unfouned conspiracy theory at best, slander at worst. And since when is OPEC or De Beers illegal? Or UL fo that matter?
Your main point is that prorpiatary software developers are incompetent. You use some... interesting justification. Just because there is so much more sofwtare for Windows doesn't mean that there is more bad siftware, but there us *plenty* of bad software (open source, free and closed) for Linux.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
I think it's just desperation. Especially on Caldera's part, since they're probably going to be one of the biggest collapses of 2002 or 2003.
UnitedLinux is clearly an attempt to raise the commercial value of compatible and LSB-compliant linux distributions.
The Mandrake solution of 'blindly do whatever RedHat does' does make things somewhat compatable, but there are a lot of drawbacks to this strategy, and it doesn't really help the commercial software vendors at all if Red Hat decides to change what they provide from version to version. (And they do.)
The Linux Standard Base is useful, it is relevant, it is important. This draws attention to and raises the bar of interest in this regard.
Now, please explain, all you slashbots, how this is a bad thing?
-josh
http://www.vasoftware.com/company/management/jenab .php
I have never had binary incompatibility problems with any commercial Linux software, on any distribution. And, unlike most freeloaders who read this site, I buy a significant amount of commercial Linux software.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Over the last few years of open source, why is it that when an open source company becomes successful financially (and by this, I mean is able to operate without going under), they become the source of evil-ness in the eyes of others? I understand that Taco put the "evil forces" in quotes to indicate a certain level of sarcasm, but to some in Open Source Land, they do see it this way.
What has RedHat done that is so bad? Sold out? Stifled innovation? As far as I am concerned, no, they have not. In fact, I am very happy with their products on the server level and use it on three production machines at my local university. The Airforce is even looking into using servers running RedHat. Not only does their stuff run well, but it gets good name recognition for Linux as a whole.
It isn't just RedHat, either. I am sure that if the Apache Foundation were to go private and start selling a commercial version of Apache httpd AND become commercially sound, they would be looked upon in the same way.
I am asking in all seriousness. I want to understand this mentallity.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
I like what you are saying, but would like it if we could all just keep one extra thing in mind.
Please (i am not talking to BigJocker here, i am talking to "the community", whereever that is), remember, not everyone is using an x86. Some people are using sparc or alpha. I use debian/ppc.
Please, think of the mac users. Whether you use dpkg or rpm, if possible, release src packages.
This is why i think in the end, distros like Gentoo, or that use the Ports system (do either Gentoo or BSDPorts have any capability for uninstall?) are the future, and distros that cannot extricate themselves from their binaries are ultimately doomed. I think that the greatest strength of open-source, GNU, and linux software is its ability to free itself from the hardware-- windows will never truly be able to escape the limitations of the x86, since if you are going to lose all your legacy software you might as well dump windows altogether. But linux, all that legacy software can be freely compiled, so whenever that day comes that it is no longer possible to squeeze that last drop of performance out of that crufty, old ISA, you can jump ship to something more promising with little consequence.
Is Gentoo LSB?
http://www.fawcette.com/dotnetmag/2002_01/magazine /columns/jfinsel/
Where every post is going to be modded "flaimbait" or "troll" lol
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
What a lot of boneheads does not understand is: UL is not about compatibility, it's about *political force*. A lot of small distros has no influence over the big hardware makers or against the "evil empire" politics.
People reply often to this problem by parroting "just install the newer packages, they are stable". I wonder what these people mean by 'stable'. If a package itself works, but requires another update (dependancy) that itself requires the first package and ignoring on either or both of those actually breaks the system (and this happens 20+ times each time trying a different approach, then there is a major problem with the system, regardless of nomenclature. What I don't get is why the deb packaging system is so fragile. Fine, a package doesn't install correctly, but shouldn't the system be able to roll back and recover? Instead of giving 'ldconf' errors and not even allowing to reinstall the broken stuff, because of this paradoxical chaos, perhaps the debian installation system should have a rollback and failsafe method. Sure it will cause a larger chunk of diskspace to be taken up, but once the packages are done and the system updated THEN it can delete these. It is much like the tether that climbers use.
This will be seen as flamebait, only because of overemotional children, but the reality is that this request has been made by many and continues to fall on arrogant and deaf ears.
it should be www.suse.com
I first started to learn linux with zipslack on a windows partition. It was hard, but I gained a lot of knowledge! More than I would if I started with Dumbdrake. It helped me sort out the bugs in it.
When I got Mandrake 8.1 In December 2001 I noticed it was infested with bugs! This is not commerical quatlity software!
Then Crapdrake released its Scam with the Club. If your not a member, then your a theif was their attitude! I got revenge though, I often troll mandrakeforum to vent my anger at crap drake.
But now im using Suse. Its a lot more professional and not a Toy OS like Bugdrake was. Its cheaper and its more reliable. They even make updates easier with a update tool thats not broken
I think everyone should boycott Microdrake and support more ethical Companys such as SuSE. I know their part of UL, but they don't make crap I and would recomend them rather than Trolldrake.
"Competiting?"
Stop replying to your own articles, Malda.
Surprised by Unicide! (fuck this shit)
Glad you pointed that out.
While I don't find this the least bit surprising, as Debian has a solid system, all around. While some people may point at Debian and say "Bloat", others have realized that Debian has implemented a fantastic set of system level tools that make Linux far more friendly without removing the ability to tweak the system heavily or to do everything manually if you like. Debian has really excelled in these lower level (high complexity) areas and is now creeping into the areas which the likes of Suse, Mandrake and of course, Red Hat, have dominated. (Slackware is a whole different breed, and is just as important IMHO)
This does however bring up some questions for me as to how this will affect Debian. Now clearly the wording in the DWN states that UnitedLinux will be based on Debian, but will this have any affect on the continuing direction of Debian? Will this in any way affect the Debian Social Contract and policies? Will political downdraft be something to worry about?
One Word three syllables: "DebianRules".
UnitedLinux is an effort on the corporate front, or so they say now. :-)
:-/
As an user of Conectiva, I was worried about it at first.
Im not against the united thing, but changes are stressing...
Both are right: UnitedLinux seeks a stronger presence with their clients (and reduced costs). This is important, but its really consolidation and Mandrake is right, too -- if they want freedom to control their distro, consolidation is undesirable. I *think* that maybe Mandrake has to consolidate in the future, contrary to their will... but if they want to be independent, all the luck of the world to them! I may even try Mandrake one of these days, theyre really have a cool product. And Redhat should do the same, IMHO.
Now, this "Debian is better than even sex" thing is getting on my nerves. Ok, it is excellent; they have a wonderful update mechanism; they have also great contributors; also, being free makes it very interesting, for the idealism if nothing else...
That said, not having commercial software sucks. I really appreciate RMS, hes a great guy -- but I want small software firms thriving. I use Linux because I dont like greedy monopolies, I have nothing against paid software. Also, _please_ refrain from this "were the best" attitude, because:
a) if youre really, everybody recognizes it and
b) now and then someone has a good idea, and even if Debian copies the idea, that someone is the best for a short time.
Im strongly motivated not to use Debian, just because of that attitude.
If you didn't read the Mandrake article yet, I would really, really recommend you do so. It's wonderfully written and an excellent explaination of what a distribution is and how software should be developed. For example:
It is extremely hard for us to understand why some software publishers and hardware manufacturers only support one Linux distribution.
Each hardware manufacturer should develop drivers directly with the appropriate Free Software project. Network card manufacturers should cooperate with the Linux kernel project, videocard manufacturers should collaborate with the XFree86 project, and so on. For example, when a network card module is included directly in the Linux kernel it becomes a de facto standard supported by all Linux distributions.
In the same spirit, all software publishers should certify their products for a given version of the LSB (Linux Standard Base), not for a particular brand of Linux. Therefore, that software would work equally well with any Linux distribution that is in conformity with the LSB.
This article has really increased by respect of Mandrake and shown that they really do understand the Open Source/Free Software methods.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I mean comments like "I use the best disto [debian link here]" or "I think...." my point is I thought the point of CmdrTaco and others modding the story clip are to place updates, corrections, or more links. NOT to claim FP!!! And yes I do see the irony in me saying this and being very offtopic at the same time. But before modding take a look at the story at the top of the page.
/. story people where bitching about other sites changing the stuff and not posting a note that stuff was changed. Think about it.
Another point about that is, I Belive on one of the recent BSD??? pages they noticed that the editors changed a link without placing a note of the change. And how a recent
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
aItis10pmDoyouknowwhereyourkarmaisRightLetusgetsta .rtedInordertogetmaximumkarmafromSlashdotpostingyo .ucanfollowafewsimpleguidelinesTheUniversityyougot .oRegardlessofwhereyouactuallystudysayingthatyoure .atMITautomagicallygainsyou2Slashdotliketheglorifi .edstudentnoticeboardthatitishasaspecialplaceinits .heartforanythingfromMITwhetheritbeateddybearstuff .edwithaswitchorsomewankerswrappingayellowbannerwi .thelvishtextaroundthemaindomeEvenifyoudidntgotoun .iversityqualifyeverycommentwithaMyprofessortoldme .tobaskinthewarmfuzzyglowof2InsightfulLinuxThebasi .softheSlashdotExperienceClaimingyourunLinuxalsoge .tsyou1InterestingItdoesntreallymatterifyouvenever .actuallyinstalleditoryourRedHatboxstilldoesnthave .PPPrunningafter2yearsofreadingFAQsTheimportantbit .isYourepartofthecommunityYoucanbatheintherefelect .edgloryofyearsofshoddybuggycodeYouareexemptfromth .eMicrosoftpenaltyseebelowasofcourseyourWin98insta .llisonlyusedforplayinggamesAndreadingSlashdotAndu .singMSWordAndPhotoshopAndMicrosoftSlashbotsandthe .editorshateMicrosoftPeriodUseofasymbolineveryiter .ationoftheirtrademarksgetsyoua4FunnyEventhoughiti .sfarfromoriginalitstillmanagestoraiseagrininthose .peoplereadingSlashdotbetweenepisodesofCowboyBebop .Youwillgeta1FlamebaitorTrollforanypostevenhinting .thatMicrosoftproductsareanygoodusefulintuitiveuse .rfriendlyYouwillalsoquicklybeshotdownwithrepliesa .bouthowgoodGNOMEandKDEarewhichwilltheninturnerupt .intoaflamewarFreedomPrivacyYROThebreadandbutterof .SlashdotItfitsinsublimelywiththewholeLinuxthingYo .ullgeta3InformativeforanypostcontainingtheBenFran .klinquoteaboutsacrificingessentiallibertyItmakesn .odifferencethatthequoteistotallyirrelevantinthemo .dernworldHeyyouvegotkarmaMiscredtingthequotewilln .otendupinakarmapenaltyashasbeendemonstratedcountl .esstimesYouwillgainextrakarmaifyoumakereferenceto .yourexperiencesofbeingwiretappedbytheNSAandthrowi .nginavaguelinktoEchelonblackhelicoptersorTinFoilH .atLinuxIncludealinktotheFirstAmendmentfora1Intere .stingmodGiveyourselfapatonthebackifyoumanagetoinc .ludesomeextraragingparanoiawithnoevidencetobackit .upNiceBSDIfyouuseitdontmentionitonSlashdotMostoft .heLinuxusingfriendlesswondersthatinhabitSlashdotw .ouldntknowqualityandstabilityifitstrolledupandkic .kedtheminthethroatwithasize13HiTecMagnumbootAnyme .ntionofhowaFirewallrunningOpenBSDwithpfisfarsuper .iortoLinuxspatheticofferingwillsoonseeyouas1Troll .MuchlikethepostyourereadingnowYearningforyesterye .arAlthoughmostcommentsarewrittenbyfirstyearwannab .eCSgurustudentsorlinkstogoatsecxthereisstillthefa .lloutdregsofthedotcomboomlurkingaroundslashdotYou .canget5Insightfulfortellinghowyouweresobadlytreat .edafterthebubbleburstWhiningaboutthelackofjobswhe .reyougetpaidtofirefoamdartsatcolleaguesisagoodsta .rtDontforgettomentionhowyouvenowbeenoutofworkform .onthsItstartsaImabouttograduateandtheresnothinggo .ingfuckfestwhichcanspilloverintohundredsofcomment .sAlthoughallthestaffwhowereanygoodsimplygothiredi .ntoanothercompanyitmakesGoodKarmaSensetohidethefa .ctthatyourpassingfamiliaritywithPerlandCsimplycan .tgetyouajobThisisalsoaprimeopportunitytoshowyoure .gregiouspersonalityasSlashdotrewardsarroganceande .asdflasdfjasdfasldhfhkasdjfhlsadfhasdljfsadfjsadf .9238u59823y5928359283298haps9dfh2h3470ht23057y235 .poqijwp4398u52934j5293852839y52983y592385yu929877 .928359823asdflkjhweoirt27983y52359239523885723923 ,293482398whdf92oioisdf98u8j89238929395jo23o235823 .9823423jsjoljkwef092309u203u950235j235j2305932052 ;90235u230958u23059u23590u23095u2035u23059u2309523 ,2309852u3sadfpasp98yu23592j352352352323582935asda .290q8436asdvzslgijkavaksljnvsdansnllkjsandfsalkds .p43295jt89pajdspvaps98fdjpasdf8asd9f8as9fd8jsapda /p9q82j349p8jwaeg98pwaejg982p398jq23gp98q23gjgjgjg .qw938tj93p2q98jt93893u958u39539858937585585555555 .2352938u5asdpouo34qht2390u592u53239u98235j232523 5.93u49wajefl;kjsdoipjqwieirtjwqeoijr29839u59382u5 2.9283u59asdfpa809w4u5980u23u482u98423728934234234 2.o2q83u5a9sd09f8u0q239859273uji9asjd0f987q3209852 3.9823urasdfasdljfjpkwqpoeijrwqpeoiruhgup9hzcxvjds d.982u4395823jsdjas898038w3jiowjowjoj2j2imn2j82222 2.982j3tr82093jr2308j232r3jr2389j32r98j2398jj82j92 2
Look, everyone knows Mandrake doesn't want to join United Linux, and why? Because they want to make money, and not share it with anyone else. It would be nice to see Red Hat follow a strict Linux standard, and Mandrake to do so as well (since they tend to follow Red Hat) but that probably won't happen because they are constantly trying to include things that will make people buy their distro and sign up for their services rather than just the same old standard stuff. That's the reason, and everyone knows it, Mandrake is just blowing smoke.
~ now you know
The standard linux desktop, KDE 3.0.2, has just been released
Any e-mail I don't want = spam
I guess Mandrake is sending their newsletter to *@*.* now, right?
Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail with a specific commercial pitch or advertisement including a price. Introductory e-mails (especially sent to a specific address), newsletters and business correspondence is not spam.
...and i use mandrake 8.2!
how is mandrake a "de-facto standard" along with redhat, when mandrake is redhat with a different installer, and a screwed up directory architecture?
that being said, i hate RPM.
Yeah, because we all know what a second-tier outfit SuSE is.
The best linux can be found here .
--I bought a set of mandrake disks, 8.1 version. After one solid week of working on it at night I GAVE UP trying to get it to go online. It installed perfectly OK and was easy to use, had the standard 6,789 packages that no one single human knows off the top of their head what they do, but I couldn't get any of the various dialers to work on my modem, which is a serial port external US robotics. Computer= "internet" for 90% or better of the hoomans on the planet. It works fine under redhat. In addition their (mandrake's) version of "rpm" packages seems to not want to install cool on redhat. I'm sure there's a reason, but as joe average user I see "rpm" it should work like an rpm. For my loot, redhat invented it (I think) so anyone using it ought to have the courtesy to make sure it follows redhat's standards implicitly.
Just my two quacks worth.
Caveat, I am NOT a coder, I tried my best to RTFM, I tried posting on forums, etc, no dice, no dial, I ain't wasting my loot on them. I can build my own systems, repair them, go hunt down programs, sorta can find dependencies, but I really don't wanna. I know this is heresy here, but this is the difference between most slashdot readers and the bulk of the US, the thing has to work without dependency hell, lack of the "cooler" library, whatever. MOST people aren't coders. This should never be forgotten if linux is going to go mainstream and beat the evil empire, something I dearly would like to see. All I can do to help is ship cash to distro company and like drop some posts or the occassional bug report. If that ain't enough, oh well, mac and windows may not be perfect, but they work perfectly allright. I have several of each sitting right here.
Here's an extreme oddity, I have NEVER gotten a BSOD on windows, I have only heard of it. No idea what I did right or wrong, but it ain't happened. I have occassionaly gotten app freezes on mac, usually real audio while surfing. The three fingered salute always fixed it.
I'm interested in supporting with cash a linux distro that doesn't require you to be a software coder. I'll buy and support those company's disks, and thereby "them". I also pop for shareware. I think my time is worth it, I really dislike alpha beta ware, I'd rather have 1/5th the packages as long as they all work out of the box on normal PC hardware. I'm also interested in supporting any platform that doesn't forget that some folks have older hardware, have no desire to be 'bleeding edge" when the old stuff ain't broke and new stuff costs serious cash, and are on dialup, and aren't going to be massive corporate webservers on T-1 wireless satellite laser quantum broadband. Ya know, the bulk of the united states, no biggee.
First company does that gets my money. Less exotic stuff,more solid non beta ware geared towards the home user who might be just a smidgen above an aol user, but below a professional / amateur gamer web hoster software engineer. I work other jobs for a living, lot of technical aspects to it, if I wanted to be a coder I would have started learning that 40 years ago maybe, but I didn't. Hardware I like, typing is a chore and I get lot lotsa tuypos (---see, I'll leave this one in), not the thing to do coding I understand. That's reality. Joe normal pooter user. Money. Out there. Millions of people. Listening Linux distro folks? I know some of you are probably reading this. No more than ONE release a year, has to install OVER the previous release, has to be functional and stable as a 1,000 lb slate pool table sitting in a clubs billiard room, get it?. Keep it UNDER 50$. 25$ retail would be better, the profit is in getting more people to use it, rather than fewer people and then nailing them on "support". People don't want to have to use "support". Support is a serious pain in the rtushie. there aren't any hoomans who like support, so try to release something that don't need it much at all. KISS principle. Less buggy crap, but what is there works. Less gross number of packages, but what is there on default install works.
This is an obvious deal here. If people will pay cheapbytes or diskclone inc, they will go a few bucks more and support the distro company directly, especially if it's on the shelf at the pooter store and it's inexpensive enough.
got a buddy owns some gas stations. Only makes a few pennies a gallon. deal is if you sell millions of gallons....
The distro companies ain't learned that lesson yet it appears. You've winged the evil empire monster, it's bleeding now and howling in pain, but it will recover unless the attack continues with quality weapons and some thought to it. Don't shoot yourselves in the foot now by only selling expensive stuff that is buggy. We already have those "choices" out there and herte's a big hint, MOST PEOPLE are not gonna want to download their OS completely. Duh, you already got an OS or you wouldn't be on the puter. They will buy it off the shelf at the store so they can just stick the CD in, as long as it works and is much cheaper than MS or Apple.
Sometimes slower to release might mean "more stable and actually works". maybe, I don't know, could be wrong on that.
That's a huge market, no one seems to want it.
Oh ya, firewall, built in, has to work,, E-Z to setup, default install off the CD doesn't leave ya wide open as soon as you go online. Don't care what "license" it is as long as I own it and it ain't microapplesoftmonopoly.con.
Just a bit of random ramblings there, sort of a wishlist.
A proper UNIX program will not spread itself all over your filesystem. However, an RPM of a proper UNIX program will.
From the postings I have read in this forum, I think it becomes clear that GNU/Linux users like the diversity of the current distribution system. Some people like to compile things from source, others prefer pre-compiled binaries and everyone wants to do this in a structured way (with some semi-automated process maybe). There are distributions that serve all those needs; needs that by definition cannot be served by a single distribution. I do not see UnitedLinux as the be-all distro for the following reasons: 1) RedHat has established a set of practices, as far as filesystem hierarchy is concerned, largely reflected in the LSB (Linux Standard Base). I do not think there needs to be a second-guessing of those choices unless there is a serious technical reason for doing so. I assume here that UnitedLinux will be making some different choices in this. 2) (This is the important one) I would guess that the people reading this support Free (or Open Source) Software. I do not think that SuSE or TurboLinux will produce a free software version of their setup tools especially since SuSE is responsible in this area (for UnitedLinux) and it has been using the YaST (non-free) licence for all their configuration/installation tools thus far. 3) Debian is in fact the best distribution. (ok this one doesn't count) Well, just my two cents on the subject.
While the Linux kernel itself isn't going to be forking any time soon, I take particular issue with Mandrake's claim that GNU/Linux is unfragmented. Their article seems to downplay 'badly thought out software' linking to libraries which are specific to the structure or filesystem layout of one distribution or another.
Especially in cases such as RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, one finds that common RPM's are not compatible across distributions. Often commercial software packages must be shipped for many different Linux distributions, and the LSB has been around for a long time. Let's not cop to the old 'well we're trying to form standards!'
UNIX tried copping to that, it got them nowhere. You Linux vendors should take a lesson from FreeBSD, just as Gentoo Linux has; form a filesystem standard, stick with it, and architect a build/installation mechanism that aids all software programs regardless of origin to be able to run.
FreeBSD Developers Handbook
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ --
1) LSB is formed
2) SuSE claims to implements it, nobody else uses propoganda
2a)First official draft of LSB released
3)All of the sudden Mandrake likes the LSB.
3a)Official realease of LSB1.0
4) SuSE forms United Linux with Caldera and some others.
5)Official release of LSB test suite
6)Mandrake 9.0 released as the first certified LSB-compliant distro.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't care much for the Linux/Windows Flamewar, but If we were to standardize some things we could achieve great feats with software. Imagine being able to download any file, be able to install it, and use it, no matter what your OS. This is what Lindows is Leaning towards I guess, interoperability. When all the time, we just need for Windows to Accept Linux, or vice versa and take the best from both worlds. So you end up paying for the new "Windux (Insert Flavor", it is rock solid and boasts tons of features. That would be worth paying for IMHO.
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
A company's declared "profit" (or loss) is just an accounting number that suffers deduction of such non-cash expenses as depreciation. What decides whether the company lives or dies is its "cash flow", the net of its cash in and cash out. Red Hat has been cash flow positive a few quarters recently, and has USD 280 mn in cash and equivalents as at 31 May, and so it will probably not be going under anytime soon.
If you don't believe it, check out the UnitedLinux FAQ, which states:
If they are going to drag Debian down their experimenting-with-new-businessmodels-HELL, I'm going after them with the old pack of eggs I've been saving in the fridge for special occasions just like this.
WAR...
They seem to make themselves out to be pretty hot stuff, especially considering that just a few months ago, their business model involved begging for donations.
;)
I especially love the part where distributions are based on 'Debian, Red Hat and Mandrake'. Right. Slackware played no part, I guess? As for Mandrake, heh, I can't think of any sizeable distro that was based off of it.
Oh, and the part about distributions including a graphical server by way of XFree86. X is a security threat, and many wise admins keep it as far away from many types of servers as possible. *Every* Linux distribution uses the 'same basic ingredients'? Har de har har har har har. Jeebus, I'm glad other distributions don't take the word of Mandrake for the gospel.
I must say, I do agree with their competition is good bit, but that's about it.
Not surprising, I must say, considering these are the people who refer to a certain corporation as 'Micro$oft' yet expect to be taken seriously in the business world.
I think we should treat the base Linux distro as a commodity and separate it from other components. We have a group working on XFree, one for the kernel, etc, so why not get a bunch of people together and release a base distro with the kernel, required libs, XFree, command line apps, etc. This base would hopefully be LSB compliant (FHS too!). This way, different companies would concentrate on installers, application choosers, and eye candy (KDE/Gnome/etc). Don't worry, there will still be lots to fight about ;)
The final frontier of Linux computing is the Windoze desktop. RH, Mandrake, and a few of the geekier distros have pretty much conquered the hardcore Linux community, but there has been minimal penetration of the desktop market.
What remains is the competition over whose Linux will be pre-installed on the next batch of lowball Walmart machines. Simplified installs, upgrades and desktop support will appeal to the "Linux for dummies" crowd, especially those who don't know or care about the GPL issues.
No matter who UL says their target market is, the only customers that would be interested in a "pay per seat" implementation of Linux are those who are trying to abandon a "pay per seat" implementation of something else. The UL product should have some appeal for PC manufacturers who want a cheaper Microsoft than Microsoft. I think UL will evolve into the "Linux Ultra Lite/Total Fluff" distro.
UnitedLinux is the linux community's only chance to compete (seriously) with MS in the desktop environment. Too many techies/programmers/geeks out there don't understand the business end of IT. Any linux distro that isn't a part of UnitedLinux will not only be competing with MS, but will watch their sales slip as corporations (who by the way need standards) choose UnitedLinux as their version.
Mandrake is right on when they say "MandrakeSoft would gain nothing by joining United Linux, and doing so would damage our reputation." Mandrake's claim to fame is their ease of use and GUI utilities, which have been praised and touted in this thread. They are not limited to the desktop, but they do it very well and that is their core competency. The are traditionally not the hardend server Linux you would think of (yes, of course Mandrake makes a fine server, I'm talking about their focus and perception). The UL crew have been very specific on what their target market is; not the desktop, the enterprise server, even to the exclusion of the desktop. Why then would Mandrake be interested in joining such a server focused group? As state, they wouldn't. Joining UL would force them to compete in an area where they are neither the leader or have a competitive advantage. Sure, you can believe all the sanctimonious hoorah they spout if you want, but bottom line is it's bad business for a desktop focused distro to join a server focused organization.
The biggest missconception about UL is that it is some Borg like entity that once you join you must fall in line with. This is just not the case. Each participating member can do whatever they like outside the UL organization. SuSE has stated quite clearly that they will continue to offer a desktop version. This version will (probably) not have the UnitedLinux tag on it, but then for a desktop, who cares? What UL offers is the ability to have your OS certified on enterprise hardware without being lucky enough to have the "defacto Linux standard" in your title (that's RedHat incase you missed it). With that in mind, there's no reason Mandrake could't join UL and realse a UL version, fully certified on all major hardware, with the added value of it's GUI tools, etc. Then Mandrake could continue to sell their deskop/server versions that would appeal to a broader, more price sensitive, customer base.
The second biggest missconception about UL is that it limits competition. This is just the opposite of the truth. To date there is only One distro that enjoys certification across all major hardware line, RedHat. Now, either RedHat has been unwilling or unable to convince it's hardware partners to certify agains all Linux distro's or, say, a Kernel/libs version of Linux. Sure, their are hundres of distro's out there, but only one certified for your enterprise needs, nice if your RedHat. With UnitedLinux there will not be two distros certified on all major hardwere, but five. And, because of the open (gasp) whey UnitedLinux was founded that could grow into as many distro's who care to achieve that level of certification. So, while UL does nothing to prevent a distro from producing whatever they like (thus not hurting competition), they provide the avenue through wich all distro's, not just RedHat, can achieve hardware certifications and compete in the enterprise market.
UnitedLinux is not a bad thing. It is focused on what it wants to do, but ultimately it does what RedHat never cared to, bring the rest of Linux along into the enterprise space. . . if they want to come.
Opus
I'd like to see a package management system somewhat like CPAN (more info). I like being able to use a ReadLine enabled interface and automatic dependancy checking. I like being able to break the install into parts: I gan get the module, tweak it as I see fit, then install it. It just seems like a better system then fink, apt-get, etc.
t'nera semordnilap
"CmdrTaco: I'll just stick to the best distribution (debian) and watch the fun from afar ;) "
Hell yeah Taco! We need a little bit of distribution pride in these slow economic times. Maybe we can even start an old fashion distro war!
DEBIAN RULES!
To quote from the newsletter reprint on MandrakeSoft's site:
:) :)
"Joining United Linux could destroy many of the features that have made Mandrake Linux so widely popular, such as our "easy to install, easy to use" approach."
So if UnitedLinux is choosing to base themselves on Debian, and MandrakeSoft's joining UnitedLinux would destroy the "easy to install, easy to use" feature of MDK, then I guess we have to infer that Debian isn't easy to install & use?
That would jibe with what a Debian guy once told me at a LinuxWorld conference. I said "I use Mandrake as my primary desktop now but am interested in getting into Debian and/or Slackware, what should I do?". He said "Maybe you should stick with Mandrake.". LOL! I guess I should've been wearing a LoTR shirt or something
Within the software industry, the recent clash of source-code licensing philosophies has proponents of commercial software and open-source advocates frequently at loggerheads. Both commercial and open-source software models, however, have demonstrated value for various sectors of the software market, which has determined that multiple licensing and distribution models should coexist in healthy competition. The market, in fact, is driving both camps toward a middle ground where the most beneficial aspects of both philosophies are embraced.
In May 2001, Microsoft® responded with a Shared Source Initiative (SSI) to provide source access to a broad range of customers, partners, independent developers, researchers and other interested individuals, while preserving the intellectual property rights that have sustained innovation throughout the industry over the past quarter-century. The SSI framework supports a spectrum of licensing programs, each tailored to the source-access needs of a specific constituent community. Meanwhile, prominent open-source developers began to adopt certain commercial distribution methods in their own pragmatic migration toward the middle. These developers commonly rely on open-source licenses, like those based on the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license, that place few if any restrictions on licensees' subsequent use of licensed source code, including its use in commercial software development.
Free software distributors, by contrast, use the highly restrictive GPL, which was created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in furtherance of its philosophy that software should not be subject to ownership, and thus that commercial software is inherently immoral. The GPL governs distribution of some popular free software, including Linux. The GPL may be beneficial to noncommercial developers and certain licensees in other contexts, but several of the license's terms and uncertainties should raise red flags for commercial developers considering its use.
Because many businesses may not understand the GPL and its potential implications, Microsoft offers this document as a checklist and to provide important background information. Most or all of the following questions will be familiar to those who have examined the GPL. Many of them have generated considerable debate even among open-source and free-software advocates. Comments in this document are based on GPL Version 2, Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Version 2.1 and the GNU GPL FAQ page (www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html).
The GPL is a complicated agreement. To understand your potential rights and obligations, you must interpret the various provisions of the license and apply them to your particular circumstances. Microsoft recommends that you obtain legal counsel as appropriate. This document does not and cannot offer legal advice.
1. Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business' rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
2. How are you using GPL software and what obligations does it impose? The obligations associated with the GPL vary substantially depending upon the way in which GPL code is used. Even limited or relatively obscure uses (e.g., including a few lines of GPL code in a commercial product or linking directly or indirectly to a GPL library) may have a dramatic effect on your legal rights and obligations. To understand the potential implications of the GPL, you need to have a detailed understanding of your use of GPL code. Basing any analysis upon a superficial understanding may present serious risks.
3. How does your use of GPL software affect your intellectual property rights? One of the most significant impacts of the GPL is its potential effect on your intellectual property rights. The GPL is widely referred to as 'viral' because it attempts to subject independently-created code (and associated intellectual property) to the terms of the GPL if it is used in certain ways together with GPL code (see Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL). For example, a business that combines and distributes GPL code with its own proprietary code may be obligated to share with the rest of the world valuable intellectual property (including patent) rights in both code bases on a royalty free basis. Other uses of GPL code may also create obligations for the user. It is important to perform a careful legal and technical review of this issue before using GPL software.
4. What if you are simply a customer, acquiring GPL software from other businesses? Does the GPL have any effect on your rights and obligations? Section 0 of the GPL says "[a]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted." So, a customer who only runs the Program should have no obligations to the author of the code under the GPL. As discussed below, however, such a customer also has no rights from the author (e.g., no assurance that the code is even free from "known" copyright infringement problems) and may have liabilities to third parties. If, on the other hand, the customer's use of GPL code involves even limited modification, copying or distribution of the code, the GPL arguably does impose obligations to the author, discussed above and below. In assessing this possibility, customers should carefully consider what the GPL means by "copying, modifying and distribution."
5. Can you develop applications for a GPL program, like Linux, without subjecting those applications to the GPL? This is a particularly important question. The answer will almost certainly depend upon a detailed analysis of the way in which the application was developed and distributed and will be subject to caveats regarding the interpretation and enforceability of the GPL. For example, the analysis will presumably involve a careful review of your development team's exposure to and use of GPL code during the development process, especially whether the application incorporated any such code or was otherwise derived from it. The analysis would also likely consider what libraries are used; how are they used (e.g., statically linked or dynamically linked); whether they, in turn, link to other libraries; and which licenses (GPL or LGPL) govern all of these various libraries. Similarly, the analysis would probably consider what header files are used; whether they, in turn, include other headers; and which licenses govern these various headers. In addition, the analysis would presumably consider whether the application is distributed with GPL code and, if so, how it is distributed and by whom.
6. Can distribution of your code with GPL code require you to license your code under the GPL? Have you combined your own code with code licensed under the GPL? The GPL attempts to address these questions directly. Section 2 of the GPL says that identifiable sections of a work that are not derived from a GPL program and that "can be reasonably considered independent and separate" are not subject to the GPL when distributed as separate works. But if these separate sections are distributed "as part of a whole which is a work based on" a GPL program, then this distribution of the "work as a whole" is subject to the GPL. Section 2 also says that a "mere aggregation of another work not based on the [GPL] Program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." A licensee is left with the difficult task of deciding whether a particular combination is a "work as a whole" (GPL infection apparently intended) or a "mere aggregation" (GPL infection disclaimed).
7. If your software becomes "infected" by the GPL, do you have to give it away for free? Section 3 of the GPL says that you can copy and distribute a GPL program (or a work based on such a program) in object code or executable form, subject to several restrictions. You are supposed to make the corresponding source code available, for example, by including the source code with the object code or offering to distribute it to any third party (Section 3). Section 1 says that you "may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy," but Section 2 says that you "must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from [a GPL] Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." The net effect is, apparently, that you are able to charge a fee for your software, but that right is significantly undercut by your obligation to give others (including your competitors) the right to distribute your software for free.
8. Are your obligations under the GPL "flexible" or "proportional" to your use of GPL code? Suppose Business A uses a few hundred lines of GPL code in its existing 500,000-line proprietary program and makes copies for its own employees or distributes ten copies of the modified program as a collective work. Suppose Business B combines 500,000 lines of GPL code with an existing 1000-line proprietary program and distributes 500,000 copies of the modified program as a collective work. The GPL may be read as to require both businesses to share the source code for their modified programs (including their existing commercial programs) and allow royalty-free redistribution of those programs. This is true despite the potentially dramatic differences in the volume, value and copies of the GPL code used.
9. Do you have all of the rights required to use GPL code? Could your use of GPL code cause you to infringe on the intellectual property rights associated with code you have licensed from others? The seemingly obvious answer to the first question is yes because those rights are provided under the GPL. The correct answer, however, may require more careful analysis. If, for example, you plan to combine and distribute GPL code with pre-existing code, the "viral" nature of the GPL may require you to provide source code for the pre-existing code to all third parties and license others to use it on a royalty-free basis (see Section 2). Unfortunately, if you licensed some of the pre-existing code from a third party, you may not even have access to the source code, much less the right to license it to the rest of the world on a royalty-free basis under the terms of the GPL.
10. Do you have any existing obligations that might preclude your use of GPL software? Could your use of GPL code put you in breach of existing contractual obligations? As noted above, the use of GPL code with code licensed from another party could, under certain circumstances, arguably obligate you to sublicense the other party's code under the GPL. If you expressly agreed not to attempt to sublicense the other party's code, you should consider whether your use of the GPL code presents a risk that breaches your earlier contract. Even if no breach occurs, the GPL includes provisions that may make it impossible for licensees to retain both their GPL rights and rights under other agreements. For example, Section 7 of the GPL says that if "conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this license, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." Suppose Business A has developed a program using trade secret rights that were licensed from Business B under an agreement that prohibited their disclosure. Now assume that A uses GPL code in a way that "infects" its program. Section 7 apparently says that use of GPL code in such a program is impermissible. This places A in an untenable situation: unless it persuades B to divulge its trade secrets to the world, A must cease distribution of its program. This may be true even if A's use of GPL code is minimal.
11. Have you considered the risk that GPL code might infringe on third party intellectual property rights? Although it is always difficult for a business to ensure that acquired products do not infringe on third-party intellectual property rights, the risks associated with the use of GPL software may be substantially higher than those associated with commercial software. For example, given the distributed nature of open source development, you should understand what controls, if any, you have in place to screen unlicensed code or trade secret information from inclusion in the GPL program. This view is perhaps reinforced by the fact that Section 11 of the GPL expressly disclaims any warranties, including presumably a warranty that the program is free from infringements of third-party copyrights or trade secrets known to the contributor. You should also ask yourself if GPL developers may conclude that this disclaimer makes it okay to distribute code under the GPL when they know they don't have the rights required to do so. Developers of commercial software, in contrast, typically have procedures, contractual obligations, and a substantial financial stake in minimizing potential infringements.
12. What happens if an intellectual property owner, who claims that your use of GPL code infringes its intellectual property rights, sues you? As noted above, Section 11 suggests that you are "on your own" with respect to defense of the suit and payment for damages.
13. What is the extent of your liability for GPL-related infringements? Several provisions of the GPL may be read as requiring a GPL licensee to effectively sublicense its rights to the rest of the world (e.g., Section 2, relating to the modification and distribution of GPL works). GPL licensees should ask themselves whether, and to what extent, they might be responsible for the actions of their sub-licensees. For example, suppose Business A distributes a modified copy of GPL code to Businesses B, C, and D, and each of them further distributes 1000 copies. If Business A is sued for patent infringement relating to its use of GPL software, the patent owner might claim that the business is liable for direct infringement based upon the three copies distributed to Businesses B, C, and D and is further liable for direct, contributory, or induced infringement by the 3000 additional copies distributed by these businesses (and, of course, any and all later distributions by such businesses and their downstream sub-licensees). While actual liability would depend upon a host of factual issues, if Business A has deeper pockets than the other businesses, it should not be surprised to find plaintiff's counsel pursuing such an approach and claiming theoretically unlimited damages caused by Business A's limited initial distribution.
14. Can the author of a GPL program 'unilaterally' withdraw your right to distribute the program? Section 8 of the GPL gives "the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License" the right to preclude distribution in certain countries based on patents or interface copyrights. It is not clear that a licensee has any right to object to this restriction, which may be solely within the discretion of the original copyright holder. It is also not clear whether this restriction can be imposed retroactively, although Section 8 does say, "this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License." Companies relying on GPL code should carefully consider the potential impact such a geographical restriction could have on their business.
15. Can you use GPL tools in the development of your own software without subjecting your software to the GPL? As noted above, the GPL is sometimes referred to as being 'viral' because it attempts to subject related third-party code and intellectual property to the GPL. People concerned about this aspect of the GPL are probably careful about modifying GPL programs or combining their code with GPL code, but they may assume that their use of GPL tools cannot 'infect' the software they are developing. While this is probably true in many cases, it is not necessarily a safe assumption. For example, the 'Bison' parser developed by Richard Stallman, Robert Corbett and Wilfred Hansen was licensed under the GPL for some time before users realized that the software they were developing with the tool was arguably subject to the GPL. The potential exposure resulted from the parser's inclusion of incidental GPL material in the tool's output. In response to this problem, Bison version 1.24 and later was distributed with a 'special exception' regarding output files. The implication is that businesses concerned about the possible infection of their software by the GPL should make sure they consider: what, if any, GPL tools are being used by their developers; how those tools are used; and the possibility that such uses might subject their own code to the GPL.
16. If the GPL requires you to 'contribute' your modifications to GPL code to 'the community,' are you sure that your competitors are doing the same? Assuming that two competitors are making similar use of GPL code, their obligations under the GPL should be the same. There are, however, a number of scenarios to consider. Some competitors may not understand their obligations under the GPL and, for that reason, might not share their improvements with competitors. Other competitors' interpretation of the GPL might lead them to conclude that they have no obligation because they might believe the GPL is unenforceable in its entirety. Some competitors may intentionally ignore their obligations under the GPL to obtain a competitive advantage, relying on a variety of factors to avoid compliance. These factors might include obscuring object code to hide use of GPL code and the strength and enforcement of intellectual property laws in the country where they are doing business.
17. Does the GPL present any special challenges for businesses developing or distributing products with embedded software? The GPL does not expressly impose any 'special' obligations on embedded software businesses, but embedded businesses should consider whether the GPL presents any unique risks based upon scenarios common to the embedded product space. For example, the manufacturer of a hardware system that includes some embedded GPL software and some of the manufacturer's own proprietary software may find it particularly important to carefully assess whether the GPL and proprietary software form a 'mere aggregation' (GPL infection disclaimed under Section 2); a 'collective work' (GPL infection apparently intended); or something else altogether. Some embedded software developers, such as Caldera and Wind River, have publicly expressed concerns about the risks associated with the GPL.
18. Are your software developers aware of the many development-related issues that may affect GPL risks and obligations? Are you asking (or allowing) them to act as your legal counsel and are you willing to accept that risk? Are you 'betting your business' on informal or anonymous interpretations of the GPL posted on the Internet? As noted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the potential implications of the GPL on software development ultimately depend on the way in which judges will interpret provisions of the GPL. A host of relatively detailed, development-related questions are also likely to be critical. You should probably make sure your developers are asking themselves a number of questions, including: Given the subtle nature of some of the legal issues presented by the GPL, you should also make sure your developers know when to consult legal counsel regarding any potential risks presented by a particular development activity. All businesses would be well advised to avoid taking actions based upon general 'understandings' of the GPL that are not based on a careful reading of the agreement itself.
19. Who can you go to if you have a question regarding the GPL's interpretation, want to clarify your risks under the GPL, or amend your obligations? The GPL was developed under the auspices of the FSF. The FSF is not, however, necessarily the owner of any and all intellectual property rights embodied in particular programs licensed under the GPL. Section 10 recognizes this by suggesting that a GPL licensee could write to a program's author (or authors) for permission to distribute the program under different terms. In some cases, no single person or entity may own all of these property rights. As a result, a prospective (or existing) GPL licensee may find it impractical, if not impossible, to negotiate a desired change in its rights and obligations or even obtain a clarification of those rights and obligations. Even if a licensee were somehow able to identify key contributors and reach agreement with all of them regarding a desired change or clarification, presumably those contributors would be unwilling or unable to represent and warrant that they had the entire right and title required to do so.
20. Are you using any software governed by the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and, if so, how does that license affect your rights and obligations? The LGPL was developed by the FSF to give library developers an alternative to the GPL. Specifically, although the FSF generally discourages use of the LGPL, it notes that "using the Library GPL permits use of the library in commercial programs." The LGPL retains the 'viral' provisions of the GPL in the context of modifications to an LGPL library (Section 2). But a different set of obligations are imposed when code is linked to an LGPL library (Sections 5 and 6). If you are developing programs that link to LGPL libraries you should review and understand these obligations. You should also check whether the LGPL libraries used, in turn, link to other libraries and especially consider the implications if the LGPL library links to a GPL library.
21. Does the use of GPL software reduce the acquisition value of your company (as a start-up) or a particular business unit (as a spin-off)? As noted above, the GPL attempts, under certain circumstances, to subject licensees' code and related intellectual property to the terms of the GPL (see, e.g., Section 3). Once your software is 'infected' by the GPL, it is not clear whether and how this process can be reversed. So, while GPL code may seem like an inexpensive, convenient and useful way for a start-up to develop a new product quickly, it may also have costly and long-term consequences for the start-up. Parties interested in acquiring the business are likely to conclude, as a part of any acquisition due diligence, that the business has already effectively given away most of the commercial value in its code.
22. Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value and exposure to suit? In the context of initial public offerings, at least some businesses based upon GPL software have concluded that such software introduces risks that should be disclosed as part of the offering. These risks include: the companies 'inability' to offer warranties and indemnities because the code is developed by independent parties over whom the offering business has no control or supervision; the uncertain future of the code base (will further development occur and, if so, in what direction); the availability of the same code from other sources for free; and concerns about negative reactions from the open source community. (These issues are discussed in the '10Ks' of several of the publicly traded companies that distribute GPL programs). If you are beginning to use GPL code, you should ask whether this presents similar risks to your business.
23. Do you have a process for reviewing and approving prospective uses of GPL software? Are you willing to use precious developer resources required to assess the impact of prospective uses of GPL code that you will depend on? Most businesses that are engaged in software development establish procedures to avoid tainting their development process with software that is subject to other people's intellectual property rights. Although GPL code is often described as 'free,' as noted above it may impose severe obligations on users and is perhaps even more deserving of a company-wide process regarding review and approval before use.
24. Do you have or need any special procedures regarding potential GPL issues created by your licensing of third-party software and or acquisitions of software? Given the potential effect that the GPL may have on code and intellectual property acquired by (or licensed into) a company, it may make sense for businesses to develop procedures to ensure that such acquisitions and licenses are reviewed for GPL issues. For example, many companies have established 'due diligence' procedures to help them identify and evaluate potential issues associated with the acquisition of businesses, product lines, and intellectual property rights. Companies pursuing software-related acquisitions or investments should probably consider whether their due diligence procedures should be updated to specifically address GPL-related issues.
The air force would be much better off when using MS windows systems, they would at least be occupied with administration and reboots then instead of killing innocent citizens world-wide.
To Moderators of this thread: Its sad when people are modded troll for having an opinion on Slashdot. Save the points for the real trolls or for modding up something that you agree with, but don't smack down people for having an honest opinion.
My reply to this post: That said, what is the best Linux often depends on what you as the user wants. That is the beauty of Linux, there is a tool for every job. Those who want (at least percieved) ease of use can go with Red Hat and Mandrake. Those who really like to tool around or really want to customize the system inside seem to prefer distros like slackware.
I think the subject speaks for itself. Yes, debian does have a pretty steep learning curve. That was the first thing he commented on about debian back in 1997 when he was running the IPv6 network on campus at Virginia Tech. (go hokies).
:-)
However, when you get to the bottom of it all, debian has a very clean and modular type install. The base install is truly a BASE install. Unlike RedHat's base install of roughly 800 megs. And like many of the individuals who have posted, not everyone uses x86. If you can install debian on x86, you can basically install it anywhere on any platform (with also learning some new stuff about OpenFirmware if you are going to install it on PPC and or Sparc since those machines I have running debian as well).
But the fact that the baseline install of Debian is truly small and compact, you can really tweak the install of NECESSARY packages/applications/libraries that you need.
I for one do not know much about the hype behind UnitedLinux and don't really care for much of it. But the bottom line is that learning Debian isn't just learning about Linux, but you really get to learn about several other things during the process of learning it.
As Bruce Lee once said: "Be Formless, shapeless like water. Now if you put water into a cup it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle, you put it into a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash, be water my friend."
And that is what Debian is: water.
I love linux, I have been running it for a few years now. However, there are some major core problems they need to fix that I think they are overlooking.
One, is the ever popular package management system debate. RPM is flawed, if you don't believe me then tell me why we need a different rpm install for each version of Redhat and Mandrake with a lot of programs.
What we need is a system that checks dependancies, does automatic upgrades, kind of like apt-get (which is arguable the best package format around). It should be robust, it shouldn't matter what you have version wise, it should always be able to upgrade a system from any state.
Another problem is configuration. The easy way to provide good graphical and non-graphical configuration is have everything use a strict mark-up language for for all config files. This way one gui program could configure everything and it is easy to read if you are logged in without graphics. Commericial Unixes like Solaris do this all ready.
Of course there are other problems as well.. but these two are a good example of problems United Linux isn't going to fix.
#!/bin/sh
(dependency checking)
tar xvf somefile.tgz
(post-install configuration)
#done!
I suffer the same knee-jerk distaste when reading about UL. Further, reading the Mandrake press release, I get all misty and want to go out and drop $100+ on their full distro release.
The fact is though I don't like Mandrake's package or config tools. FUrther, I love SuSE's slick tool sets, and while Yast is not under a free license, its actually very open for those who take the time to actually read it.
As for UL, it is intended for the ENTERPRISE. The desktop distro's of the various UL members are unaffected. The entire point of UL is to provide a solid target for enterprise level developer's when creating software. Further, it gives a company thinking of moving to Linux a strong partnership to get support from.
Everyone running Linux on their home/work desktop can stick to their favorite and whether its under the UL umbrella or not you won't notice the difference. I strongly agree with many of the sentiments in the Mandrake letter vis a vis Linux. That's great for end user's and the public, but do you think the Linux servers installed by Big Blue aren't standardized? It makes it easier for companies like IBM or HP to offer Linux to high end
markets.
I'll stick to SuSE, with its cutting edge packages, ridiculous ease of use and it runs the gamut from total noob distro to hard core enterprise server. And the config tools make a joke of Mandrake's offerings.
I vote for modding down CmdrTaco as -1 Flamebait for his comment on debian being the best
Ave Molech Setting
Someone please mark this date.
Inter-Linux FUD takes over any rational discussion of things.
I'm with you on that one. #apt-get install peaceandtranquilityfarawayfromdependencyhell
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
I think that the point of UL is being missed here. The biggest problem in getting major adoption of Linux servers in the commercial world is the lack of reliable commercial support. UL helps make this happen by ensuring that there is a single "certifiable" Linux base that a supprot organisation can guarantee support for. Whilst this is not important for most of the Linux world, it is important for corproate customers who want that level of insurance. Each of the UL vendors will then add their own customisations on to seperate CDs which will retain the current distribution uniques.
Note that this is only aimed at the server market, the current separate distributions from each of the UL vendors will remain available for "client" or "non-commercial support" use.
So Linux users have the choice of using what is available today, or no choosing to use a special package which can be certified as supportable by a commercial support organisation (this does not imply that normal Linux is not supportable!).
As Mandrake is mainly a client-orientated dist, I am not surprised that UL doesn't interest them.
BTW, UL is unlikely to have any special packages etc in it, it is the certifiable combination that is important.
a bunch of bad distros in to one distro is one big
expensive shitty distro
So I found the forward slash. It is the shifted 7. I tried to shift it once more using both shift keys but that didn't work.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
What do SuSE, Caldera, Conectiva, and TurboLinux have in common? Simple; those four distros are practically the only ones that continue to try to make a profit, and consistently fail. RedHat is profitable, and Mandrake is getting closer every day; Debian, Gentoo, and myriad others are noncommercial distros that have no profit incentive. But SuSE, Caldera, Conectiva, and TurboLinux all want to be the next RedHat, and outside of very small markets, they all failed.
SuSE is RedHat's biggest competitor in Europe, and has the greatest marketshare in Germany. Caldera was formerly RedHat's biggest competitor in the US (until Mandrake came along). Conectiva is RedHat's biggest competitor in Latin America. TurboLinux is RedHat's biggest competitor in Japan.
So, these four distros realized that in every market, there was generally three corporate competitors: RedHat, Mandrake, and one of them. They decided to merge, so that there would be a common distro with worldwide marketshare; but kept the companies separate, so that they could leverage their brand in each market - would Latin Americans suddenly buy a copy of SuSE? As it is, they might fully merge someday, if/when the UnitedLinux brand becomes stronger.
Mandrake knew that they were a strong competitor throughout a very large geographical area; as they said in this statement, their worldwide marketshare is larger than the four UnitedLinux companies combined. Mandrake would have nothing to gain if they had to pool their resources with four companies who are much weaker then they are, and declining all the time.
I wouldn't be surprised if UnitedLinux ends up in a full corporate merger, and later the whole thing goes bankrupt; after reading Mandrake's statement, I get the feeling that they wouldn't be either.
afaik, and to my best knowledge,
ROCK Linux ( http://www2.rocklinux.org) was the first distribution to roll out with devfs enabled, the first distribution with devfs-only support, and the first distribution with devfs-only on more than [1,2,3] platforms.
ROCK Linux first deployed devfs when the devicenames where still "/dev/scsi/c0t0d0s0" style, with rock-linux 1.2.0 from 17th august 1999 - i don`t know whether any of the earlier releases already used it, but they have been supplying most current (kernel+devfs+glibc) for about three years now. you can check out the old sources at http:www2.rocklinux.org/releases/old/.
The definition of SPAM predates any legislation on the subject by years. The fact that our corrupt government has drafted legislation (or, in some cases, allowed mass marketers to draft legislation) that changes the definition for the convinience of the SPAMMERs themselves in fact does nothing to legitimize the incorrect definition you are defending. It does serve, however, to delegitize the government that is redefining the term
From whatis: The most authoritative definitions are probably the following ones, offered by the Net Abuse FAQ (for USENET) and the email abuse FAQ (for email) The only people who are defining SPAM in the self-serving, restricted manner as you are are the SPAMMERs themselves and the legislators they have bought (and, indeed, not even all of them).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Ok, ok... mod this down to flame bait. I would myself but you can't mod your own posts. The only reason I even write this is because I haven't let the zealot mode out in almost two years.
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
RPM's purpose is to package and install applications and let you know when dependencies in the RPM database don't meet the requirements of a package. Sure it does more, but that's the crux of it. If more distributions than Debian used .debs you'd see the same problems--it's not the packaging system.
> Yes, but Woody shows no sign of being released
> in my lifetime...
Sadly, sometimes, something could be long, the others could be otherwise.
Many people who are on the bright side have already been using Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 "Woody" for some time by now. Having said that, I have made yet another installation of Woody with an fsn.hu (20020702) 4.3GB DVD. Haven't you try that out? Who need to wait until release.
Cheers
Iota Small
Really, how often do you see french people/organizations going along with anything, especially things of american origin (caldera). May God bless the french ;).
Being a FreeBSD user, and thus to some extent part of the problem ;-), I'm only peripherally aware of what's going on here, but an attempt to unify the operating environment of the various Unices can only help. Unifying Linux would be a great start. The inability to do this in the late 80's, combined with a refusal to make a user interface the mere mortals could use, handed the PC market to Microsoft in the first place. Unix was going gangbusters back then and was on the verge of standardizing, but everyone had to do their own thing, and Billy jumped in. And it's taken another 10-15 years for Apple to put a pretty face on Unix. The Open Source version still has a long ways to go yet to match it.
Earlier today, legojenn was found DEAD. Most will remember this user as an avid and active troll sucker, responding to hundreds of trolls per day. When once asked how much time it takes per day, legojenn responded "About 8 to 16 hours, but that's OK because I don't work or shower. Some might even call me a lazy slacker, but those people are trolls and I handle them well." R.I.P legojenn, your razor sharp wit and cunning will be sorely missed.
legojenn, a true Slashdot icon.
I have great respect for the Mandrake Linux, or any other Linux distribution, for that matter. Making a distribution of any software is hard, and an OS is more complex than most.
But Mandrake is missing the boat... and so is United Linux.
In Mandrake's FAQ entry, explaining why they have decided not to participate in United Linux, they state:
"Since all distributors use the same base
components, there are relatively few binary
incompatibility issues. And even when a
binary compatibility problem arises, it's
easy to recompile an application for a given
Linux distribution."
and they claim:
"It is extremely hard for us to understand
why some software publishers and hardware
manufacturers only support one Linux
distribution."
To me, the answer is obvious: a third party developer would have to not only internally certify their software for support purposes, but it would have to also maintain seperate SKUs (Stock Keeping Units) for each of the Linux versions on which it runs. For commercial applications, "recompile" is not as easy as the act itself. It's clear, these people have never produced a third party shrink-wrapped packaged software product intended to run on a UNIX system.
The intent of United Linux is to try and make it possible for a manufacturer to build shrink-wrapped product that they can know will run on any United Linux labelled platform.
But here, United Linux must fail, as the LSB has failed.
In the original UNIX Wars (of which I am a battle-scarred veteran), the problem was that each distribution of UNIX, even for the same processor family, was "standard plus extensions". Each vendor tried to provide "value add"... and, in doing that, they introduced incompatability between nominally standards compliant platforms.
So paying lip-service to a standard gets you nowhere. The LSB gets you nowhere, and POSIX gets you nowhere. You may be able to compile the same source code on each of these platforms, and, if you are lucky, and did not need to use any platform proprietary information to build your product, it may run without errors. But all you've achieved with this is source compatability.
The LSB doesn't give you binary compatability, and neither does United Linux. And it won't, even if they specify the ABI, even to the point of install tools and other minutia, like IBCS2 did (and neither BSD nor Linux has *full* IBCS2 compliance, until the IBCS2 installation and packaging tools also work -- it's not *just* the ABI, it's the environment).
Why will United Linux fail, since that's what I'm leading up to?
United Linux will fail because it's not possible to *turn off* the vendor "value add".
This seems counter-intuitive at first, but it's a fact. It's the same reason the LSB has failed to deliver on the same promise. And it's the same reason UNIX was never able to be defragmented, when everyone started using Intel processors and commodity PC hardware. Here is the reason:
Standard plus extensions is inherently non-standard.
Let me repeat that:
Standard plus extensions is inherently non-standard.
Until it's possible to turn off *everything* that isn't covered by a standard, it will be impossible for a third party developer to build something that they *know* will run on all platforms that conform to the standard.
Linux vendors: if you want to become the #1 developement platform for United Linux, then strip out everything that isn't covered by the definition of United Linux.
That -- and only that! -- will guarantee that any program that runs on your platform will run on any United Linux platform.
It will guarantee that there is no possibility of a third party developer accidently using a vendor specific extension (OK: "enhancement", but we know that it's really there for vendor lock-in).
It will also make you a commodity.
*This* is what the vendors in the UNIX Wars feared, and refused to let happen. And, in doing that, they lost all the third party development resources to Windows, which *was* a commodity, even if it was one only because of the Microsoft Monopoly.
Will this happen? Will the Linux Vendors wake up to the fact that they nust agree to *commoditize themselves*? Probably not. It's a lot easier for Caldera or Mandrake or Red Hat to compete among themselves, and try and beat each other down, than it is for them to try and take on Microsoft.
So Mandrake... you're avoiding doing the wrong thing by not participating in United Linux, given it's current vender differentiation model permitting vendor lock-in of third party developers.
*But*... you are doing it for the wrong reasons, and as long as you stick to your guns, you aren't going to be doing the right thing for the right reasons, either.
-- Terry
What a bunch of propaganda on both sides! The truth is Linux is dying. It was a ripoff of BSD which was never as good as the BSD distributions freely available today. It's no wonder more and more people are swiching to FreeBSD.
Used RedHat, :)
Used Mandrake,
even checked out Corel Linux
But none of them, IMHO, can top slackware...
sure it's a one-time big job of configuring everything but atleast YOU have control over your system and not the distribution alone.
One problem your best distribution link should have pointed at slackware.com.
So pad're, what are you really saying? That RedHat should NOT have responded to the market? That the customer ISN'T always right? That "standards" ought to be applied though end-Lusr functionality is lost?
From this Lusrs POV, scr*w all that religious crappola and the weenie_cycle it rode in on.
The Beast is the Best.
-- oodabadabaY
Package formats: RPM, DEB, there were a slashdot discussion last month about both package formats and i draw the conclusion that the problem it is not package format, but in the way you package your software.
If you want an unbiased comparison between them check out: www.kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp/
Dependencies: Now there are solutions to solve dependecies in both package formats. RPMS solutions are pretty new but it is the right way.
- apt-get: for deb packages and for rpm packages, adopted and developed by Conectiva and Mandrake.
- urpmi: adopted and developed by Mandrake
- up2date: adopted and developed by RedHat, you have to register to use it so it is not the right way, not my favourite.
So that is not the real problem but the way Linux distro package the software.
Have not even seen it yet, yet it is excluded from the possible?
That will not get you anywhere.
If it did, everyone would still be running Microsoft crap.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
this is to the people who run /., shut your bloody heavily opinioned biased yapps!!!
ok, im just sick and tired of seeing at the end of almost EVERY news post what you ppls think..no-one cares! ok, if you care so much about other people hearing your opinion, go join sone support group for shit's sakes.
If you took the Windows installation wizard approach, you'd have to decide at the time of the install for the user what the likely options for all your users would be. And if you get a new user who wants an extra feature, you're screwed because you have to modify the install to add the missing module.
As I said, much better to have a system install (handled by package mgmt) and then a user install (as easy as writing a dot file in the user's home directory)
Why do you think we need a new definition of spam?
> Any e-mail I don't want = spam
Wrong, although it is undertsandable why many new users believe so. Most unwanted email they get is spam, so when more experienced users call that spam, they believe it cover all unwanted email.
> I guess Mandrake is sending their newsletter to *@*.* now, right?
Not as far as I know.
> Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail
Yes. Of course, spam is more than that. We used the term for mass-posted messages to Usenet before junk email became a problem on email. And before the term reached Usenet, it was used for the practice of flooding online text games with messages, preventing other players their turn.
> with a specific commercial pitch or advertisement including a price.
No such requirement have ever been part of the definition of spam. While most email spam have a commercial twist, there are a low that doesn't (Jesus loves you, learn about the supresseed ethnics, help this worthy cause).
The "includes a price" clause is plain stupid, the majority of spam doesn't include spam, it just refers to a web site.
> Introductory e-mails (especially sent to a
> specific address), newsletters and business
> correspondence is not spam.
Depend on whether it is bulk and unsolicited. It need to be both to be spam.
I think you're a bit off base here - one or too of your statements feel a bit, well, fuddy ...
You are very keen to suggest that Suse, for eg, is a *proprietary* distribution, implying somehow that it is not free. This is fluffy - you are free to download suse from their website. All the software is gpled, you can do what you like with it.
You mention Caldera's per seat thing. Sure, a tricky one for the gpl to cope with, but Suse have said that they will be selling their UL distribution on the same basis as now. Anyone can join in with UL and can sell their particular offering (binaries, install, support, additional tools) as they see fit.
The whole thing is gpl for source (if not for binaries.) You can build a UL box for free and distribute that. What you can't do is then brand it UL. But so what. If thats what you wanted to do then it will always be better for you to actually join the association.
You seem to have missed the whole *support and services* part of how enterprises decide on key platforms. They don't just run things on test distributions!
SuSE Yast is not closed source, but it isn't "Open Source" either. It's a propriatery licence which gives you somewhat more freedom than usual propriatery licences, but leaves SuSE in control.
This is a fact. Now you may argue that "this isn't a problem" for you, and someone else may argue that "this is a problem" for him...
Oh piss off you abusive wanker. Theres no point in abusing someone just because you don't agree. Maybe when you graduate from high school you'll learn that. Remember kidstuff that that sort of language in the real world will likely get your nose punched in.
Fuck off.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.