Slashdot Mirror


The State of GNU/Linux in 2002: It was Good.

An anonymous reader writes "This year has proven most interesting for GNU/Linux. While there was not any amazing surprises, there were numerous events that are noteworthy for review. The upshot to all of this is that most of what happened was good overall for the Free Software community. Read the full story."

347 comments

  1. My Favorite Free Software from 2002.... by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 1

    Is Gnome2, specifically the RedHat 8 version... way to bring it to the enterprise!

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
  2. just good? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 5, Funny

    It rocked! Then again: I'm using Debian/Woody which is about a year old so I wouldn't know...

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:just good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using Debian/Woody which is about a year old

      Your woody is a year old? Geez, that has got to hurt by now...

  3. /.ed? - Here's the text by jbrandon · · Score: 2, Informative

    The State of GNU/Linux in 2002: It was Good.
    By Timothy R. Butler
    Editor-in-Chief, Open for Business
    December 31, 2002, 20:55:12 EST

    Free Software
    This year has proven most interesting for GNU/Linux. While there were not any amazing surprises, there were numerous events that are noteworthy for review. The upshot to all of this is that most of what happened was good overall for the Free Software community.

    One of the most notable events for Linux this year came early in March when Sharp Electronics started marketing the first mainstream GNU/Linux PDA. The Zaurus, which premiered at $500, started off by appearing in electronics stores across the United States, including Best Buy and Office Depot. While by the end of August, Best Buy had cleared out their stock; Office Depot seems to be sticking around for the long haul.

    The Zaurus seems to have fulfilled the promise of a powerful GNU/Linux PDA, attracting interest from a wide array of pundits and purchasers alike. In fact, yours truly is writing on the said device right now. On a side note, the Zaurus SL-5500, which will be replaced with the 5600 in early 2003, won the best Innovation award in the Open for Business Open Choice awards in July.

    Linux got another round of mainstream attention in June, when, through a series of announcements, mega-retailer Wal-Mart announced plans to offer not one, but three different Linux distributions on their line of Microtel PC's. Since then, the company has also started to offer custom configuration of the systems.

    2002 was also a year of uniting, starting with the formation of UnitedLinux in late May. The alliance, a motley group of two has-been GNU/Linux contenders (Caldera and TurboLinux) and two fairly strong players (SuSE and Conectiva), left most people wondering what exactly the group hoped to do in its quixotic attack on Red Hat. More puzzling was why anyone would want to ally with a company with as little to offer as Caldera, or would let Ransom Love - whose name does not represent the emotion most often expressed towards him - speak as a "spokesman" for the new consortium.

    It does seem that the group did finally get the message that Love, if anywhere in the organization, shouldn't be the one speaking for the group - perhaps the muffled sounds of him speaking with a sneaker jammed into his mouth was what finally got that change accomplished (needless to say, Love's comments caused lots of fire towards UnitedLinux for its first few weeks). Whatever the case, the group did manage to get UnitedLinux 1.0 out by year's end, just as they promised, which shows at least the development is better managed than the publicity.

    UnitedLinux wasn't the only game in town for various groups joining forces this year, either. We (that is, Open for Business) were part of the alliance that created the popular new GNU/Linux news network Linux Daily News on July 2. It should be said that talks between OfB, LinuxandMain, DesktopLinux.com/LinuxDevices.com, and KernelTrap.org began months before the UnitedLinux announcement, so this was a strange coincidence and not a sign that your GNU/Linux media has taken to playing follow-the-leader with the companies we cover.

    Not particularly surprisingly, Red Hat did not fail to provide some of the most interesting (and controversial) news items of the year. It all started in the spring, when Red Hat announced a first ever program offering a rebate to those who "upgraded" from select other distributions to Red Hat Linux 7.3. Beyond drawing a lot of attention in commentaries, it is not apparent whether this program was successful or not.

    Red Hat continued plowing forward with controversial moves when, in late July, it became public knowledge that Red Hat was asking a major project it had often ignored to promote Red Hat, while in exchange, the company would do nothing more than mention the project's name on some signage. That might not have sounded like a bad deal had it not been one of the most recognized projects in the community: KDE. Considering that KDE receives most of its support from Red Hat competitors MandrakeSoft and SuSE, and none from Red Hat itself, the project's developers weren't too keen on the offer. After Open for Business' exclusive coverage of the conflict, however, Red Hat made good on its mistake, and KDE showed off their handiwork on Red Hat, using a nice machine provided by the company.

    Still, Red Hat, perhaps on a quest for the controversial, hit two more big items as fall approached. The first, BlueCurve, has been a rather polarizing issue; those using GNOME seem to like it, whereas those using KDE do not. The issue at stake is the fact that most of "KDE" on Red Hat systems has been modified to look and act like GNOME. In fact, the vendor went so far as to make GNOME applications default over their KDE counterparts in most situations, even when using KDE. The other issue we mentioned promised to show perhaps what the "red" in Red Hat really meant, as the company surprisingly removed the Taiwanese flag from the localization dialogs in favor of the communist mainland's flag. Worse, at least to those who don't look up to Mao, Red Hat labeled the change a "bug fix." Ouch.

    Still, it might be most appropriate to rename Red Hat to Midnight Grey Hat (Black Hat is taken), as the company announced a first ever profit in its latest quarter. That's right, the company best known for the mysterious guy in the red Fedora is no longer in the red.

    Unfortunately, things didn't go quite as well for those in Paris, France. MandrakeSoft, the popular GNU/Linux developer that almost wasn't until the company's founders managed to take back the helm in 2001, was forced to issue two pleas for financial assistance as it continued to reel from the debt built up during the previous management's one year reign. While the company's "MandrakeClub" was at first looked on as nothing more than a donation system, by the time that the March 2002 financial communiqué caught everyone's attention, the membership service was finally starting to shape up into something useful.

    MandrakeSoft also stirred up the dust of controversy earlier this month with the announcement of their new Multiple Network Firewall product. While the package's availability as a proprietary product (as well as a GPL'ed download), and the associated lock-down on intellectual property, caused somewhat of a skirmish, Duval cleared up much of the concern in an interview with me two weeks ago.

    Certainly, MandrakeSoft isn't alone in the financial woes department, with two other long-time GNU/Linux names, Lineo and TurboLinux, going up on the auction block over the year. A third, Caldera, didn't go up for sale, but it did change its identity to a company it bought the year before, renaming itself the SCO Group, and seemingly refocusing on the proprietary UNIXes that the original SCO had developed.

    The year was also a great period for software releases, with the highly anticipated GNOME 2.0 finally arriving and bringing that desktop back into the ring with KDE, which had been significantly ahead since the 2000 release of KDE 2.0. Still, due to a decision that is hoped to increase the latter project's next generation platform longevity, KDE 3.0 was already out the door before GNOME's June release.

    Other exciting software releases for the year most certainly include the first non-development release of a full-fledged Free Software office suite, OpenOffice.org 1.0. The suite, while still tied to a molasses slow startup time, offers nearly perfect compatibility with Microsoft Office 97/2000/XP, making a non-Microsoft office product finally a reality for many businesses. Likewise, while it really offers only a few major advantages (and some disadvantages) over KDE's Konqueror, Mozilla 1.0 finally did arrive on the scene attracting attention from many mainstream sources. While its impact on the "browser wars" may be minimal, it does promise a real alternative to Internet Explorer on pretty much any platform.

    Last, and certainly least, if one goes by media attention, was the arrival of popular "proprietary GNU/Linux" distributions. The duo of Xandros Desktop and LindowsOS (incidentally, both based on the same never released Corel Linux OS 3.0) both sport much more restrictive licenses than any other popular distribution, requiring per-seat licensing for businesses. As our review of Xandros revealed, the package is a pretty good deal -- but mostly for those looking to run Windows applications under GNU/Linux. You'll have to wait a few more weeks to hear from us about LindowsOS.

    In all, it may not have been a perfect year for GNU/Linux, but in my opinion, the successes far outweigh the failures. All indications seem to suggest that 2003 might just be even better.

    Timothy R. Butler is Editor-in-Chief of Open for Business. You can reach him at tbutler@uninetsolutions.com.

    1. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by packeteer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Im sorry but this is a blatent karma whore. First this guy gets a FP and takes an unpopular opinion so he goes and whores the text of the article probably to build a points buffer.

      BTW as to not be considered a karma whore on my own im posting without my +1 bonus so if you dont wanna read this comment i wont shout it at you.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    2. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      christ allmighty, man. get a grip. does your life revolve around Slashdot karma?

    3. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by Jeremi · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Im sorry but this is a blatent karma whore.


      Who cares? People wouldn't award karma if the posts weren't useful or interesting, no? So who is being hurt here?


      OTOH, posts complaining about karma whores (and replies to them) are arguably not worth people's time to read.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      why would anyone care about getting karma: ecellent in their user profile? I personally find it genuinely useful having the article text posted. Get a life.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    5. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by packeteer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First of all posting article text is illegal. So for one thing i dont want slashdot to make web sites angry for taking their content without them getting ad revenue. Also you need to watch out for people who are karma whoring. People have said they dont care about karma whoring but i think they need to. People can get their karma up to the level where they get a +! bonus and troll away. That DOES lower to level of quality on slashdot and its something that i would like to not see happen.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    6. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      It's illegal? Really, I find that interesting. Can you point out which law which declares this illegal?

    7. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by packeteer · · Score: 2

      From the article:

      Privacy Statement - Syndicate our news using XML/RSS
      © 2001-2002 OfB.biz, a Universal Networks service, All Rights Reserved.
      "Open for Business," the Open for Business logo, and "OfB.biz" are trademarks of Universal Networks.

      You are copying their content, the all rights uncluding copyrights have been reserved. You are violating copyright by posting the text.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    8. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by martyn+s · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since when does OfB.biz have the power to write laws? That's not a law, that's just a copyright statement. Umm, as I'm sure you know, the New York Times also has a copyright statement. Regardless of what the New York Times says, I can still give a photocopy of an article to my friend.

      It's called fair use.

      You still haven't quoted me any law.

    9. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called fair use, asshole. The starter of this thread didn't reproduce the exact HTML document (including tables, images, and formatting), thus he has the liberty to mirror the article's text as a service. The Internet has different rules than the physical world, get used to it.

    10. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by CoolVibe · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's called fair use.

      It's fair use when you use a snippet of the text. The root post of this thread quoted the whole text, so yes, it's breach of copyright.

      Oh, IANAL by the way.

    11. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's fair use when you use a snippet of text. And yes, this is a gray area. But it's ALSO fair use to give a photocopy of an ENTIRE article to a friend.

      But do you really object because it's "illegal"? I mean, the site was being slashdotted, I'm sure they'd appreciate the load being lightened. I think you're just saying that because you were shot down for claiming the poster who posted the article was a troll.

    12. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by CoolVibe · · Score: 2
      I never said I agreed or disagreed with that guy posting the entire article text. In fact, I don't really care.

      Just stating the facts, ma'am :)

    13. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by hkmwbz · · Score: 2
      Well, I'd actually call it fair to contribute to stopping the slashdotting of the page ;)

      But carma whoring is annoying nonetheless.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    14. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Please see...

      packeteer

    15. Re:/.ed? - Here's the text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call it fair use. But until your case is tried and a decision reached by a jury, whether it is actually fair use or not is very much up for debate.

      And in this case, Slashdot is not just a friend handing a friend a photocopy. They are a for-profit news site who appear to have wholly appropriated material from another news site. While it's obvious that no one at Slashdot specifically intended for the article text to be posted here, should OfB.biz ask, Slashdot really would have to remove the article text as they have no legal right to distribute it.

  4. what about decimal ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How goes the purging of decimal from GNU/Linux? Does it show up anywhere? Decimal is bad.

    1. Re:what about decimal ? by Salsaman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes it's all been replaced with binary now.

    2. Re:what about decimal ? by hdparm · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I so wish to have mod points for gems like this one but that never happens. You've made me laugh.

  5. best part? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Sharp Zaurus!

    200+mhz in my pocket along with 64mb of ram, and Debian GNU/Linux as soon as that damn SD card I ordered comes in!

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:best part? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      1. Get a Sharp Zaurus
      2. Install Debian into it
      3. ???

    2. Re:best part? by jsse · · Score: 1

      Darn, I wouldn't buy Palm Tungsten/T if I knew it. :)

      But Tungsten runs on StrongArm too. Anyone starts a Debian project on it? Gotta check...

  6. Fonts That Don't Suck! by occamboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To my mind, the best thing, and it's a biggie, is that we finally have a distribution (Redhat 8.0 -- perhaps others?) that, out of the box, renders fonts so that they look good to non-nerds. This is the first step towards bringing Linux to the masses!

    Next we need to radically cut the number of choices that the average user needs to make at install-time (Gee, which of the following 87 libraries should I install? And what the hell is a library anyway?)

    If some entity (Redhat? IBM?) just grabs the bull by the horns, we'll have a good Windows replacement in a few months! Pleasepleaseplease somebody do it!

    1. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by bogie · · Score: 2

      That is a good point about Redhat 8.0. Like it or not Redhat is the leading distro. Since Redhat is the face of linux(again deal with it), its about time that face was nice to look at.

      One side effect of this will be interesting. Any distro that dares to put out a release without doing what Redhat did by making a nice desktop and fixing Open Office's fonts will suddenly be out of the running when linux distros get reviewed or cross-shopped. I'm glad Redhat raised the bar, but my advice to other distros is to fix their fonts or fade away. It doesn't matter how easy it may be to "fix" your ugly distro's fonts. There is NO excuse for that anymore and users shouldn't have to lift a finger to fix something so basic, so save your "simple fixes" for nerds who don't care about Out of Box aesthetics. Users have seen how nice linux can look with the right fonts, they simply won't stand for the subpar appearances anymore.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    2. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by sys$manager · · Score: 1

      Seeing it's open source, couldn't they just grab redhat's fonts?

    3. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by dmelomed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So the default Helvetica for everything approach works great for nerds?

      Fonts are a big problem with X, and X applications. This is an area that definitely needs improvement. Another biggie is the lack of consistency among X applications such as cut and paste, look and feel, configuration, etc (but all this is tangentally related to Unix; these are X problems).

      And why is this story relative to "GNU/Linux" only? Why not free Unix? Oh, I forgot, it's Slashdot. Mark this one flamebait.

    4. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you installed RedHat? Or are you just randomly bitching?

      Fontconfig (the font managment stuff redhat is using) unifies X fonts and makes things much more sane. Just copy fonts into your ~/.fonts directory, and they work.

      Add to that the (non-patent-encumbered) new font-rendering in freetype 2.1.3, and things get pretty darn good. Sure, bitmapped fonts look bad, but .fon's look bad in Windows too, that's not an X problem. Stick to the truetype ones and you're all set.

      Or were you referring to yourself when you said, "Mark this one flamebait"?

    5. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      Not everybody runs RedHat. This isn't an RH issue, it's the X issue.

    6. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by brsmith4 · · Score: 2

      you know what's funny? They really didn't fix the fonts for open office. They simply changed the UI font size (tools->options->view->scale) from 100% to 110%. It seems to fix it on every other linux box i have used. If you have redhat 8, set the font scale to 100 and see how shitty it used to look :)

    7. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by pavera · · Score: 2

      Its the same in RedHat, 4 options workstation, laptop, server, or custom. I always choose custom, meaning I have to do stuff, but my brother who's 14 uses linux, and when he installs he just selects workstation and is done with it... very simple indeed.

    8. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Xzzy · · Score: 2

      > out of the box, renders fonts so that they look
      > good to non-nerds. This is the first step towards
      > bringing Linux to the masses!

      eh? When did font rendering become the holy grail of desktop interfaces? Near as I could both windows and macos were accepted at home long before anti-alaised fonts were available. Even now windows uses the same default sans-serif font they've been using since windows95, text doesn't read any smoother or easier than it did 8 years ago.

      seems to me it has more to do with mob mentality and available software.

      Everyone else uses windows, so obviously random computer buyer should buy windows too. Aisle after aisle at best buy has windows software in it, so obviously random computer buyer should buy windows to run all of it.

    9. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a huge line several miles wide between what is useful for servers and what is/could possibly be useful for desktops. Unfortunately, this line is so wide most people would fail to notice it even if they hit said line head first. I often see that so called "desktop distros" include stuff such as PERL, Apache, MySQL, PHP, ProFTPd... What the hell would one random computer user do with these programs? And with "random computer user" I mean those kind of people who do nothing about security at all, double click everything that contains the word "naked" "nude" or the name "anna kournikova" and their parents/ofspring/aunts/cousins/grandparents/lovers /mistresses/pets, you name it. I'm not even going to mention out-dated FTP/HTTP/SSH servers that might be exploited because random users don't ever update or turn off programs... ("But I like having so many programs running...")

      On the other hand, we have so called "professional" distros that are far better. If you want to use them as a desktop, sure, click anything you want. Server? Just select everything you want for that one. However, these distros will never be destined for the normal user ("Where is my mouse? Yes, I know it's on my mouse mat, just where is it on my screen!? GPM? Wha? Not in X yet?") unless installed and secured by one random friendly non-introverted Linux hacker from around town...

      So, get rid of all the stuff people never use on desktop distros such as Apache and the like. The people who DO use it prolly aren't happy with the default included package and will most likely build their own anyways. The professional distros are fine with me atm, no-nonsense and no marketeer buzzwords. (Yes, I just visited redhat.com)

      Although the one thing that could improve all of linux is the removal of X. God, it is SLOW, Windows 98 booted faster on my p300 with 64mb and this is an AMD at 1667mhz with 1024mb! While I haven't seen the source code myself (yet), I heard it is about as bloated and obscure as it is. Lose it, replace it with smaller, non-server client orientated graphic systems. Random users want SPEED, not the ability to link up 100+ terminals to the computer.

    10. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by kien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I totally agree that RH8 was a great step forward for GNU/Linux on the desktop of Joe_Average this year. I still prefer *BSD, but I'm a Joe_Geek. :)

      For me, the biggest sign of Linux success in 2002 was that non-geeks recognized the word "Linux" when I mentioned it. They still don't quite understand what it means (and some of them think I have a stutter because I always say "GNU/Linux" which comes out sounding like "Guh-New-Linux") but the simple name-recognition was a huge sign of progress to me. I give Wal-Mart a huge ton of credit for this.

      Another poster (quite rightly) mentioned that a weak economy is not necessarily good for F/OSS because of the risk-factor involved for companies to implement new software. I work for a very large telecommunications company, and it sure does help sell GNU/Linux to management when you can mention in a business case that Wal-Mart sells PCs that run the operating system. (Big-wigs like business precedents.)

      I can't wait to see what will happen in 2003!

      --K.

      --
      Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
    11. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Wumpus · · Score: 2

      I just tried it. It's set to 100%. What are you talking about?

    12. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by xenocytekron · · Score: 1

      If some entity (Redhat? IBM?) just grabs the bull by the horns, we'll have a good Windows replacement in a few months! Pleasepleaseplease somebody do it!
      It's already done, they call it Mac OS X.

      --
      This is my .sig, if you don't like it, it will eat you.
    13. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Anonymous+Hack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What would be real nice is fonts under Java under Linux that don't suck. I see this as still being a Very Big Problem. You can run the IBM or Sun JDK, JBuilder, Red Hat 8.0, whatever, but key fonts seem to be missing or substituted with some really dodgy alternatives. It's still too hard to develop cross-platform Swing or AWT apps with at least a semi-consistent GUI.

      --
      I got a sig so you would remember me.
    14. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Mac OS X is a "desktop distro" and it includes Perl, Apache, PHP, and maybe some FTP daemon. What makes you think a "random computer user" wouldn't want to learn those things if they are on their computer? Not everyone is an idiot. Judging by my Mac magazines and web sites, there is a small percentage, 10-20% or maybe more, who are interested in diving in deeper.

      But Apple makes it a little friendlier in spots. When you activate "web sharing", it fires up Apache and you don't have to know anything about Apache to run it.

      However, if you drill down into the configs, you can set it up to your hearts content, and the Mac will still automagically manage the user dirs separately. That's cool, and that's Apache under there.

      So, LEAVE the power tools on EVERY machine. Even if the end user doesn't ever use them, some piece of software they install might take advantage of it, or someone might put a usable interface on it like Apple did.

      Not all computer users are idiots, many people just *don't have the time* to learn arcane stuff but if you make it a little easier, they'll play with it and maybe make their time at the computer easier.

      I do agree that the cluttered menus, multiple desktop enviros, and stuff like that can go. I don't see why Red Hat has to mess with KDE at all, for instance. It can be like an add-on (like you can add-on all kinds of junk to Mac OS X).

    15. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by brsmith4 · · Score: 2

      RedHat 8.0?

    16. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by child_of_mercy · · Score: 2

      well perl is used by plenty of apps to run.

      hell you probably can't get a debian system to run without it.

      mysql has similar (albeit less frequent application uses)

      an FTP daemon isn't so different from having file sharing available is it?

      I prefer the debian base-system apporach myself, all of what you need, none of what you don't, but easy to get more on as you need it.

      that could be why all the new (gentoo aside) distro's are deb-based.

      (and have Perl)

      --
      'There is a Light that never goes out.'
    17. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by psamuels · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I often see that so called "desktop distros" include stuff such as PERL, Apache, MySQL, PHP, ProFTPd... What the hell would one random computer user do with these programs?

      Uhhhh. What is "PERL"? Closest match I found is "Perl", a scripting language heavily used in system maintenance procedures. Kind of important if you want to, say, install packages and stuff. (Actually I don't know about RH8, which is what we're presumably talking about here, but a lot of Debian packages require a minimal Perl install to support the packaging scripts.)

      Oh - for future reference, saying "PERL" rather than "Perl" is a lot more damaging to your credibility than any mere spelling mistake I can think of. (:

      Although the one thing that could improve all of linux is the removal of X. God, it is SLOW, Windows 98 booted faster on my p300 with 64mb and this is an AMD at 1667mhz with 1024mb!

      What, praytell, do you propose to replace it with?

      While I haven't seen the source code myself (yet), I heard it is about as bloated and obscure as it is.

      Then you should listen less to people who don't know what they're talking about. (Yes, that means reading less Slashdot.) On my box X takes about 3 seconds to start. This is so dwarfed by the startup time for GNOME, it's not even funny. If I logged in and out often enough for it to matter (hmmm, looks like my last login was 1 Dec), I think I'd switch back to vanilla fvwm2.

      Now I know that it is fashionable in certain circles to assume that since X is 15 years old and has "unnecessary" features like network transparency and is still binary compatible after all these years, that it must be the cause of all of life's bloat problems. Sorry, but it just ain't so. Not that X couldn't be improved - it's being improved all the time. But it's not the pig you think it is.

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    18. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by MulluskO · · Score: 2
      Even now windows uses the same default sans-serif font they've been using since windows95, text doesn't read any smoother or easier than it did 8 years ago.
      Actually, the default fonts for the Windows XP user interface are Trebuchet MS and Tahoma, complete with anti-aliasing and shadow effects.
      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
    19. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by digidave · · Score: 2

      I just recently ran the installation script that comes with Knoppix. It's by far the easiest way to install Linux, and it's Debian to boot! The hardest decision was the partitioning, which would give a noob trouble, but I had the whole thing done from CD boot to Debian boot in under 30 minutes. While I don't think that the mandrake install is harder than the XP install, Knoppix beats them both.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    20. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by fozwinkel · · Score: 1

      Are there any distro's that ask the user who she/he is (home user, small business terminal, small business server, corporate terminal, corporate server, developer, isp, custom)?

      In what I've seen so far (Mandrake, Redhat), you can either do the default install (everything and the kicthen sink) or slog through gazillions of lists of applications and libraries. I like Mandrake's choice of "Default Install" or "Minimal Install & with graphics & with documentation" but it seems the idea could do with more refinement.

    21. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2
      Uhhhh. What is "PERL"? Closest match I found is "Perl", a scripting language heavily used in system maintenance procedures. Kind of important if you want to, say, install packages and stuff. (Actually I don't know about RH8, which is what we're presumably talking about here, but a lot of Debian packages require a minimal Perl install to support the packaging scripts.)

      Hello Nitpick, PERL still is and always has been an abbreviation of "Practical Extraction and Reporting Language" and as far as I have learned, abbreviations are spelled with all caps. Actually including dots between each letter as well, but that's kind of redundant because people who got a clue what PERL is, also know PERL is an abbreviation and hence it is also very correct when spelled in all caps. That still leaves one entire issue about the fact I was talking about desktop issue and you start about Debian. I like Debian myself, but I wouldn't consider it a desktop distro, especially not for the average computer user.

      What, praytell, do you propose to replace it with?

      Something else. Like I stated before, who here actually USES the client-server capabilities of X? Apart from a small bunch of people, I presume almost none. It's old, it's archaic and it's in need of something sleek, small and fast to follow it up. Sadly I can't code good enough yet and designing an graphics sustem would be quite impossible for me atm. I'm pretty sure there are people working on alternatives atm though.

      Then you should listen less to people who don't know what they're talking about. (Yes, that means reading less Slashdot.) On my box X takes about 3 seconds to start. This is so dwarfed by the startup time for GNOME, it's not even funny. If I logged in and out often enough for it to matter (hmmm, looks like my last login was 1 Dec), I think I'd switch back to vanilla fvwm2.

      Hmm... ... Pass.

    22. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by hdparm · · Score: 2

      Talking about font scale in Open Office. I'm on 7.3, installed OO myself, changed 100 to 110% and font indeed looks much better. He says that scale is set to 110% in OO install from RH8 by default.

    23. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      I just loaded Mandrake 8.2 a couple weeks ago. During the install, it prompted for the type of intended use of the machine and gave 8-10 options that could be selected by radio buttons.
      The choices ranged from Workstation to Server with things like Scientific Workstation, Development Workstation, Documentation....
      Very simple to decide, really.

    24. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by mbadolato · · Score: 5, Informative
      Hello Nitpick, PERL still is and always has been an abbreviation of "Practical Extraction and Reporting Language"

      Um, no it isn't. Right from the FAQ:

      What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?

      One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look OK, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym, apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions notwithstanding.

    25. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by psamuels · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Hello Nitpick, PERL still is and always has been an abbreviation of "Practical Extraction and Reporting Language" and as far as I have learned, abbreviations are spelled with all caps.

      Little credit here? Duh, I know what Perl (once known as "Pearl", by the way) stood for. But no, abbreviations are not always spelled with all caps, and they are not always treated nunc et semper as abbreviations. In this particular case, nobody in authority - from the legions of Perl hackers out there to Larry Wall himself - refers to it as PERL any more. I believe that practice died out well before the release of Perl 5, say '93 or '94. Indeed, referring to it in all caps, like prounouncing Linux Lienux, is a very efficient way to telegraph the fact that you are out of touch.

      What, praytell, do you propose to replace it with?
      Something else.

      As I thought.

      Like I stated before, who here actually USES the client-server capabilities of X? Apart from a small bunch of people, I presume almost none.

      I do, as do many people I know, but that's not really the point. The point is, you have not yet proven or demonstrated that X is bloated to begin with - or, if it is, that its bloat is even measurable on current desktop setups - or, even if it is, that the client/server design is to blame.

      It's old, it's archaic and it's in need of something sleek, small and fast to follow it up.

      Nice set of assertions you got there, backed up with some lovely handwaving.

      My counter-assertion is that while X is old (and "archaic", whatever that means here), it was designed so well to begin with that it has aged gracefully and is not at all in need of replacement. I further assert that your miserably slow experience with Linux on your Athlon has little or nothing to do with X per se and should be blamed on something else.

      designing an graphics sustem would be quite impossible for me atm.

      Then, pardon my bluntness, but you're not really qualified to comment on whether an existing graphics system is even good or bad, much less whether its design and implementation are so horrible as to warrant a complete redesign. I happen to think that X's shortcomings (yes, it has some) are for the most part fairly easy to fix or work around, thanks to its excellent original design.

      And hey, aren't you the one who thinks all abbreviations should be in caps? What's with "atm"? (:

      I'm pretty sure there are people working on alternatives atm though.

      Yes. The best-known would be Fresco, which (though I have no first-hand knowledge of this) looks to be a lot more feature-rich / bloated than X. (I believe Fresco uses CORBA throughout, for one thing. If you thought network transparency was an unnecessary layer of abstraction, aka "bloat", check out CORBA. And yes, it's spelled in all-caps.)

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    26. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by ArmedGeek · · Score: 1

      Hello Nitpick, PERL still is and always has been an abbreviation of "Practical Extraction and Reporting Language"

      That's acronym NOT abbreviation.

      --
      Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
    27. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by ashpool7 · · Score: 1

      What X are you using? I can get X up (on my k6-500) in 3 seconds after typing xinit. Granted, I only have a xterm open with no window manager, but that is X. Now, perhaps you're talking about KDE or GNOME startup. That's where bloatage is.

      Now, obscure I'll give you for X. 4.x improves upon that, but it's got a ways to go.

    28. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by gonadware · · Score: 0

      No, this isn't a RH issue. Thats because RH *FIXED* the issue!! It's fine if you want to run a lesser distribution. Thats what freedom is all about. But don't bitch about unix/X11 problems when the solution is already available.

      --
      Check out my ghey articles and linux pseudo-contributions!!
    29. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      Hello Nitpick, PERL still is and always has been an abbreviation of "Practical Extraction and Reporting Language"
      That's acronym NOT abbreviation.

      Actually, it's a special class of abbreviation called an acronym. In other words, it's both.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    30. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's my beef with X11:
      It's great that I can type 'X -query workstation :1' and get an XDM desktop login from my 2Ghz box in the study to my p166 in the den.

      It's great that I can make little ssh scripts (lauched by desktop icons) on an old weak pc to run applications remotely on the 2Ghz gawdbawx through X, with no password required since openssh is handling this through public key encryption...

      It's swell that I can use ssh + X compression to run gui-only updaters or other gui programs when needed, on my parents' linux systems, 500+ miles away over dsl...
      All of this is great, BUT

      It should not be true that windows on a gnome or kde desktop running locally on a 2Ghz cpu with 333Mhz pc2700 RAM with a Linux 2.4.20-ac2 kernel compiled with the fabulous new scheduler and an X server (nvidia binary) running with a -10 nice priority should EVER strobe or stutter about when dragged around over top one another. Both desktop environments (gnome kde) shipped on Redhat 8.0 have "draw window contents while moving" turned on by default, so I am not going to answer facetious criticism that I "should not turn on stupid features like that and then complain about the results".

      It should not be true that a fast pc would exhibit these ugly artifacts but it is true. They are far less noticeable than they were to me 4 years ago --because of the improvements in memory busses processors and gpus-- but they are still there. Maybe they go away with the fastest rambus based systems but, whether they do or not, that's not really the point.

      The point is that an 4 year old K62 350 Mhz running Windows98 draws a smoother, more responsive desktop than you can get from equivalent desktop environments under Linux/X11 --despite a hardware upgrade to atom-smashing power.

      Is X not the culprit?

      If X is not implicated, possibly by what it doesn't do, by what it wasn't designed for, then why is it apparently so that no one is able to design a complete "environment" style desktop that can compare to the oft-derided Windows98 for responsiveness ?

      (don't tell me about Blackbox and IceWM & Sawfish--being a stickler for GUI responsiveness I know the simple window managers for X11 very well-- and they are no fair comparison to or competition for Windows' desktop environment, as gnome and kde strive to be)

    31. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Daengbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      who here actually USES the client-server capabilities of X? Apart from a small bunch of people, I presume almost none.
      In fact, I use it, and so do a growing number of schools and businesses as a way to recycle old hardware and limit administration headaches. IceWM on my little P133 16Mb RAM X Term takes about 10 seconds from ON to autologin... slow because it's got a 10mb NIC. It runs OO.o Moz 1.2.1 and Gimp 1.2.3, all at the speed of the server.
      This makes it easy and profitable. Dropping the server client aspect of X11 would be really silly as people in your country ready themselves for a touch screen with network sound in every room.

    32. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1
      Uhhhh. What is "PERL"? Closest match I found is "Perl", a scripting language heavily used in system maintenance procedures. Kind of important if you want to, say, install packages and stuff. (Actually I don't know about RH8, which is what we're presumably talking about here, but a lot of Debian packages require a minimal Perl install to support the packaging scripts.)

      Oh - for future reference, saying "PERL" rather than "Perl" is a lot more damaging to your credibility than any mere spelling mistake I can think of. (:

      PERL is an acronym, standing (misleadingly) for 'Practical Extraction and Reporting Language'. Larry Wall subsequently decided he didn't want it to be an acronym any more and changed history. Thus anyone who writes 'PERL' is old enough to remember PERL 1 or PERL 2, while anyone who writes 'Perl' is either a revisionist or a clueless newbie.

      Oh, and anyone who things it's a good idea to hack bastardised forms of awk (an acronym, named after its developers Aho, Kernighan and Weinberger) and sed (a contraction of stream editor) into one process doesn't understand UN*X.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    33. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by saintlupus · · Score: 2

      Although the one thing that could improve all of linux is the removal of X. God, it is SLOW, Windows 98 booted faster on my p300 with 64mb and this is an AMD at 1667mhz with 1024mb!

      I doubt that's just X... XFree runs acceptably with FVWM on my old Sun IPC (40 megs of RAM, no less), and my main workstation is a dual Celery 366 with Windowmaker. I think all of the "desktop environment" bullshit is probably more of an issue on any computer newer than 5 or 6 years.

      --saint

    34. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Something else. Like I stated before, who here actually USES the client-server capabilities of X?

      All the fucking time man. There are a lot of less tech savvy people where I work that use it too, and have been using it since before I even knew how.

      OpenSSH automatic X tunnelling means it "just works", and many many people take advantage of it. The only ones not using it are the ones that don't know about the feature.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    35. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Etyenne · · Score: 2

      Just curious : when was the last you had to manually choose which library to install ? Oh yeah, the last you checked "Custom Install" and "Show All Packages".

      Beside that, do we want a Windows replacement ? I personnally dont. What I want of Linux is a solid and useable Unix-based OS.

      --
      :wq
    36. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you do it bitchboy? Fuck you.

    37. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Etyenne · · Score: 2

      First, Perl (please don't capitalize) is quite useful for user too. Your system is probably full of script written in Perl that you are not aware of. Same goes for Python.

      Second, do you understand the implication of replacing X ? Beside having to rewrite a graphical display system (a long, tedious and error-prone process), you will have to rewrite or at least modify almost all of the current application.

      BTW, lot of people complain about speed of X but I would really like to see this quantify beyond "Win98 boot faster !". Chance are it's not X that slow, it's your desktop environnement (KDE, Gnome). At least give a try to a lighter WM.

      --
      :wq
    38. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's get rid of X! And have *zero* software for the next 3 to 4 years! While *you* implement the replacement! These kinds of things always work out well!

      DUMBFUCK SETH, GROW UP, be happy with what you have and try to understand why things are the way they are.

    39. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Wumpus · · Score: 2

      Yes.

    40. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      No, I've worked as a technical support agent. Even some of the brightest can be total dumbasses at times. They should include the option in the system configuration menus, but keep it OFF the harddrive. Lord knows that any random user can just find /bin/yada/yada/yada/apache/ and run apache and not know what the hell it does. If he was to be forced to not only find it nestled away in a submenu, he might be a little less inclined to run it. Windows2000 is VERY good about this. Too bad the Webserver included itself isn't very good....

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    41. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously ... this entire thread is living proof that geeks don't get laid.

    42. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      Care to share where this solution is as far as XFree86 is concerned?

    43. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

      I work for a very large telecommunications company, and it sure does help sell GNU/Linux to management when you can mention in a business case that Wal-Mart sells PCs that run the operating system

      I think its [funny|sad] that your management waits for Wal*Mart to sell Linux instead of IBM.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    44. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by unoengborg · · Score: 1

      Hmm, If it only was the fonts that sucked in Linux java. On my Swedish keyboard I can't even write some characters in Swing based java applications.
      This bug has bin around for 3!!! years.

      This is very annoying since java could be an excelent way simplify a switch from Windows to Linux.

      --
      God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
    45. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by Malcolm+Scott · · Score: 1
      Actually, the default fonts for the Windows XP user interface are Trebuchet MS and Tahoma, complete with anti-aliasing and shadow effects.

      ...And those are my default fonts on Linux as well. (Fully antialiased, of course.) Microsoft's Andale Mono is also my default monospaced font. I find them very easy-on-the-eyes and not too bad-looking. If only I didn't have to break license agreements to do this...

      What Linux really needs is a good set of free, scalable, antialiased fonts, on a par with Microsoft's.

    46. Re:Fonts That Don't Suck! by chez69 · · Score: 1

      fontconfig is an open system. check out the fontconfig web site it is supported at the toolkit level ( QT, GTK+ both support it ).

      QT and GTK+ on redhat 8.0 are both configured with fontconfig support, Mozilla also supports it.

      --
      PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
  7. PDA Good || Server Bad by fozzy(pro) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many Linux users have been waiting for Linux to break out and start converting more users. Walmart certainly helped supporting Lindows, which i hope succedes as a desktop replacement. I think It's demize is the generally high price of the Subscription. In other light I know of schools and many other instutions switching to MS bassed mail systems due to ease of maintence and webacces they offer (Yes Many Linux solutions exist I like them myself). But a switch to MS Products is very bad for Linux on the server side...espically considering security issues as Windows is insecure.

    I agree ith the PDA article. I found the Sharp to be just as usefull as the Palm software and almost as easy as WinCE. I think the Small evices market could easioly be dominated by Linux because software for those devices needs to be customized by a manufacturer and the cost quickly becomes cheaper for manufacturers due to little to no cost for the Linux and abou tthe same cost to customize it as any other OS (ie Drivers for the hardware and customicing software).

    I hope the economy gets better
    Happy New Year

  8. this year left me full of memories.... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    (pushes a big red button on his chest)
    and now they are all gone!

  9. don't use decimal . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you are too stupid to understand anything else.

  10. Rules for GNU/Linux in 2002 and upcoming years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    1. Write lots of PR about GNU/Linux
    2. ???
    3. Claim that the year was good for GNU/Linux

    1. Re:Rules for GNU/Linux in 2002 and upcoming years by Basje · · Score: 2

      While labelled as funny, which it is to an extend, it is also sad. Sad because it is true.

      In order to get people feeling positive about something, you have to be positive about it yourself. So far so good. Most linux/unix users are very positive about it.

      The next thing you have to do is to communicate it. In an intelligent and comprehensible manner (to the masses that is. May seem to be a contradictio in terminus?) Luckily for us geeks, this is what is happening at the moment.

      Good communication is an art, just like good programming is. To people who do not understand it, it may not seem so, but for linux to succeed, all artists need to work together. For the fun of it ,or for the money.

      What I wanted to say is: mod parent up. He's saying the truth.

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
  11. Re:CmdrTaco... by Sheetrock · · Score: 1

    I'd moderate, except that my privileges mysteriously disappeared never to return after The Day Of The Thousand Moderations.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  12. Re:CmdrTaco... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    oh please, this is a troll and flamebait at its most pure form...get a life, slashdot has its problems, but so does everything else, live with it

  13. calm down by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If you're taking slashdot this seriously, you need to find a new hobby.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  14. Re:CmdrTaco... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no shit. besides, it's JUST A WEBSITE. as the other wise AC said, get a fuckin life.

  15. Re:CmdrTaco... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you people are taking slashdot too seriously

    it's a fucking news site

    get a life

  16. next year will be better..... by oliverthered · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well if not for Linux, then for the users....
    Key projects are starting to mature and become more 'user friendly' which is important for the desktop usage Linux is missing.
    a few examples are:

    Desktop+ performance features have made it into the 2.6 kernel, things like pre-emption, lower larency, higher frequency clock, async-io, better threading, alsa.. All great news for desktop users.

    Support is under development for older video cards (often build into modern chipsets) in the DRI project, giving decient X performance to most users.

    KDE and GNOME had a lot of new features in the latest releases, the next couple of revisions should see the features maturing, with performance gains, more universality/intergration &co...

    CDRecord has added support for IDE drives (without having to run ide scsi) application like arson are making cd burning easy... all good news for the home user.

    Wine is comming along in leaps and bounds....

    Xine and Mplayer now work for more-or-less every format out there, hopefully next year will see Moz plugins.

    This year was good, next year will be better...

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:next year will be better..... by dmelomed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      KDE and GNOME are not Linux specific.
      cdrecord is not Linux specific.
      wine is not Linux specific AFAIK.
      Xine and Mplayer are not Linux specific.
      The year was good for Unix, not only Linux.

    2. Re:next year will be better..... by TummyX · · Score: 1

      Next year will also be a big year for Mono and DotGnu.

    3. Re:next year will be better..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNU is not linux specific and
      Linux is not GNU specific.

      the use of GNU/Linux in the article suggests the whole package, not just Linux.

    4. Re:next year will be better..... by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      There are ambiguities of what Linux and GNU/Linux actually mean. Some people refer to some distributions as "Linux". Other refer to them as "GNU/Linux", others prefer to call the Linux kernel "Linux". Most usually forget not all free software is written for it. Especially here.

    5. Re:next year will be better..... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      It's also important to note that most non-free software isn't written for Linux.

      Apple have Mac OS-X, based on BSD(probably because of the GPL more than anythinng) doesn't help out other Unix users.

      Sun have tones of proprietry software, again doesn't help out the rest of unix (OpenOffice and things like that are comming out of Sun)

      Microsoft has Windows, help out Apple a bit and that's about it.

      Linux has OSS that can be used by anyone else

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    6. Re:next year will be better..... by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      "Linux has OSS that can be used by anyone else."

      No. OSS is OSS. A linux distribution is the Linux kernel and other bundled OSS. Not all OSS can be used by anyone either - depends on the license.

      OSS isn't developed especially for Linux. OSS is developed for any OS it targets (and usually almost any Unix as long as there are no portability problems).

      There's more non-free software written for Linux and other free Unixes every year because there's demand. Easysoft OOB is available for Linux and FreeBSD among others, Opera is available as a native binary for FreeBSD or Linux. Oracle is available for Linux, Sybase is available for Linux. The list of important commercial software is quite long.

      And of course, if it's available for Linux in a binary chances are it will run on any of the BSDs.

    7. Re:next year will be better..... by kien · · Score: 1
      All our lauded technological progress-our very civilization -is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal.

      Yep, true. Luckily, with all things being equal (i.e. when good guys have access to the same tools/information as the bad guys), the proportion of good guys to bad guys usually tends to favor societal good. For every jerkoff ($j) in the world, there are $j^10 decent people working against them.

      And before someone tries it...

      Kien's Law: Invoke Goodwin's Law whenever someone tries to equate handguns to software; bullets != bits.

      --K.
      --
      Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
    8. Re:next year will be better..... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Umm... that still doesn't alter the fact that as things stand Linux (on the desktop) is dependant on OSS.

      Sure most of the desktop apps can be used on other OS's, even windows if you want, but most apps for comercial Desktops can't be used on Linux.

      linux has been success for backend applications for quite a long time. This year wasn't that great for server side linux.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    9. Re:next year will be better..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:next year will be better..... by Combuchan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Nugget's Law: 95% of the time when a Linux user says "Linux" they really mean "Unix". The other 5% of the time they're referring to an aspect that only applies to their particular distribution

      </troll>

      --
      "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
    11. Re:next year will be better..... by Bastian · · Score: 2

      granted, I haven't RTFA, but the headline was GNU/Linux. Granted, GNU/Linux is usually used to refer to Linux alone, but I think it is fair to say that most of this stuff does count for the GNU part, which can be run on any unix.

    12. Re:next year will be better..... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      Most Linux software can be easily ported to other forms of Unix, normally FreeBSD and Solaris. If you look at what the developers themselves use though, you normally find it's Linux all the way - there is 1 person working on keeping the FreeBSD port of Wine up to speed, and I believe it requires parts of the Linux emulation to work (I might be wrong).

      Really, it seems that FreeBSD in particular is mostly being dragged along by Linux - despite FreeBSD being supposedly more commercially friendly, if you look at the commercial developers for say GNOME, you see they are all Linux companies. Ximian in particular don't release FreeBSD binaries as far as I'm aware, and of course you have RedHat, SuSE, CodeFactory etc.

      As an aside, late this year should hopefully see Wine 0.9 which is the release scheduled to get ease of use. Let's hope so, eh?

  17. I think its amazing by pavera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've only been using Linux for about 1.5 years now, and it amazes me how fast things get better in the OSS world. I mean sure Linux has been around for 10 years so maybe that's not "so fast", but in the last year I've noticed huge strides.

    The first time I installed linux (redhat 7.1) it took me a few tries to get it to see my mouse, my laptop video card didn't play nice, my desktop sound card didn't get found and took like 3 weeks of teaching myself kernel compilation stuff to get it up and running, my desktop NIC was a hassle, and I thought the desktop choices were attrocious (KDE 2.2 and gnome 1.4 I Think...)

    Not to mention any software to do real work (Office apps, decent browser) or to have any fun (IM, Decent mail client) had to be installed after the fact requiring more compilations, and messing with the system...

    More recently I installed RedHat 8 on my desktop and laptop... Oh the beauty... Gnome 2 is a truly nice system if you ask me. the new theme is easy to look at (finally!!) All the apps I need (OpenOffice, Gaim, Evolution, Mozilla) are the defaults and are already installed. All of my hardware was perfectly and flawlessly recognized, even my wireless network card was setup during the installation (Shake a stick at that WindowsXP!).

    All in all, night and day, in 1 year its gone from taking 1-3 days to get a desktop linux system really ready for production to about 30 minutes... If the next year holds as many leaps and bounds of usability MS will be in dire straights soon.

    I have still done WindowsXP installs during the last few months that don't recognize all of the hardware in a box, especially wireless network cards (the linksys wpc11 most notably). Besides the fact that from a clean install of WindowsXP you still have to install all of the software (office, developement environment), it still takes at least 2 hours to get a windowXP box really ready for use, then another 4 to do all the updates it needs... (granted, it takes about 2 hours to download and install all of the redhat updates since the 8.0 release.. but it all happens in the background and doesn't require a reboot, while with WindowsXP and windows update, there are at least 4 updates that you have to download *alone* and then reboot after each one, meaning to do the updates, you are going to reboot 5 times and you have to babysit the box while the updates are happening, times reflect downloading on 1mbps DSL).

    In this users opinion, its been a GREAT year for OSS and Linux, and I hope it just keeps getting better.

    1. Re:I think its amazing by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2
      All in all, night and day, in 1 year its gone from taking 1-3 days to get a desktop linux system really ready for production to about 30 minutes...

      Indeed. With RedHat 8, I can now use Linux as a desktop. Prior to that, I felt that Linux never really had that polished look I needed to use it daily.

      I still use Windows every day... But now, I find my self using RedHat 8 more of the day and Windows less.

      For 2003, it would be nice if Open Office got better (much better). Also, Mozilla speed improvements or Phoenix 1.0 would rock!

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    2. Re:I think its amazing by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      with WindowsXP and windows update, there are at least 4 updates that you have to download *alone* and then reboot after each one, meaning to do the updates, you are going to reboot 5 times and you have to babysit the box while the updates are happening, times reflect downloading on 1mbps DSL

      Store the updates in a safe place then, like a dedicated 'files' partition (which is what I do) or a CDR. That way, you don't have to download everything every time you reinstall Windows. I do the same thing with the install files for the programs I use, e.g. XChat, AIM, etc. It's a great time saver.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    3. Re:I think its amazing by pavera · · Score: 2

      Sure, I know you can do that... I'm just talking about the default behavior, and the process most users are going to go through... most users aren't going to spend time figuring out that you can tell windows update to save the updates...

    4. Re:I think its amazing by Micah · · Score: 2

      For 2003, it would be nice if Open Office got better (much better). Also, Mozilla speed improvements or Phoenix 1.0 would rock!

      I for one am confident that both projects will have huge strides in 2003.

      For OOo, version 1.1 will be released, probably in mid-year. There is a pretty good list of new features and bug fixes. Also, hopefully the native OS X port will be done. Maybe Apple will even bundle it with every box? Wouldn't THAT be sweet? In your face, Bill!

      For Mozilla, yes, Phoenix should create a butt-kicking browser. Mozilla will keep adding features. If the Mozilla guys fix some of the things they broke since 1.0.1, I really see Mozilla+XUL+Javascript making strides in the edutainment department.

    5. Re:I think its amazing by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      >> Also, hopefully the native OS X port will be done.

      I too am waiting for the OS X port of OOo. Even if it's just a beta. I was looking at the developement time line. It looks like 1st Q of 2003 will bring us an alpha build. I'm sure it will bead paying $400 of MS X.v

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    6. Re:I think its amazing by shri · · Score: 2

      I'm now on day 3 of my Linux install. I think I'm pretty close to bringing it upto par with what XP does on my Sony VAIO desktop... which I tend to use for a fair amount of multimedia stuff.

      I've been looking at linux as an OS for server platforms since '92-93 and have never considered it on the desktop, until, well, a couple of days ago.

      To its benefit, even if I screw up a driver or three, the machine still boots. Every couple of months on XP, when I add or remove or update a driver I've got to deal with mysterious freezes. :)

    7. Re:I think its amazing by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Off topic rant-

      You've gotta either somehow work Mae Ling Mak into your tagline (and ditch Portman) or admit you're a newbie in these parts.

    8. Re:I think its amazing by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Also, Mozilla speed improvements or Phoenix 1.0 would rock!

      Try a new version of Phoenix, and try using tabbed browsing.

      I've been pleasantly surprised. Around M18 or so, I was pretty firmly decided that Mozilla was *never* going to have decent performance...there'd be some optimization, but it wasn't going to ever be very usable on an older PII.

      Was I ever wrong.

    9. Re:I think its amazing by KidSock · · Score: 2

      I've only been using Linux for about 1.5 years now, and it amazes me how fast things get better in the OSS world recently I installed RedHat 8 on my desktop and laptop... Oh the beauty...n 1 year its gone from taking 1-3 days to get a desktop linux system really ready for production to about 30 minutes

      Ok, I like Linux too but has it occurred to you that it took 1-3 days initially because your hardware was brand-spakn'-new whereas now it's a perfectly seasoned 1yr old? Obviously if you installed the latest RH kernel with your RH 7.1 sytem it would recognise wireless ok. And more to the point if you happend to have a machine that was 1yr old at the time RH 7.1 came out I bet it would work like a champ out of the box. OSS isn't moving faster. It's simple HW support latency.

    10. Re:I think its amazing by pavera · · Score: 2

      Wrong.
      my laptop was nearly a year old then, I got it in Feb of 01 and installed linux on it in October of 01. My desktop was even older, I got it in Nov of 2000 and installed linux on it in Sept of 01. Assumptions assumptions.

      Whether OSS is moving faster than in the past or not isn't the point, my point is that it moves faster than Windows (as Windows XP still doesn't support my wireless nic, a linksys wpc11, right out of the install), and that its made amazing strides in usability this past year.

      But, to further argue your point, the oldest box I've installed linux on (a p2 266) had the most problems, usb, video, sound, nic, modem none were recognized properly during the install of 7.1, or 7.2 but in 7.3 they all worked perfectly (all versions RH). So your older is more supported theory doesn't hold there. My newer hardware was supported earlier.

      Besides one of the biggest reasons its easier to set up a desktop linux box now is software support not hardware, the inclusion of OpenOffice, Mozilla, Evolution, Gaim, xmms, and the like make it ready to use as soon as the install is finished, you don't have to go around downloading/compiling/installing other software, its all there right out of the box.

  18. Q: Why is linux like sex? by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Funny
    A: Because Even when it's bad it's still good.

    A: Bill Gates doesn't get it.

    1. Re:Q: Why is linux like sex? by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates gets it. MS is very busy at rectifying the situation.

    2. Re:Q: Why is linux like sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, from my own *ahem* experience, I can tell you Billy gets sex. He gets a *lot* of it. And, as a result, I get a lot of pre-release Microsoft software.

      But you keep all this under your hat, okay? There's Melinda to worry about.

    3. Re:Q: Why is linux like sex? by damiam · · Score: 2, Funny
      Bill Gates doesn't get it.

      Sure he does. He screws millions of people every day.

      (ducks)

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    4. Re:Q: Why is linux like sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Like sex, software is better when it's free." -- Linus Torvalds

    5. Re:Q: Why is linux like sex? by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Like sex, software is better when it's free."

      And also like software, it's better when it doesn't involve Stallman.

      --saint

  19. Re:CmdrTaco... by Pathwalker · · Score: 1

    You still can't moderate?

    I lost the ability on that same day (I moderated a post in the Thread of Doom), and it suddenly came back several months ago.

    I assumed there was a mass pardon of everyone involved in that mess...

  20. I could be wrong, but... by Dthoma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...can't you just pick a profile from the list of install options, and it takes care of the packages for you? I could be wrong.

    Besides, some of us like the look of the sans-serif non-anti-aliased fonts. ;-)

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

    1. Re:I could be wrong, but... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Good point. The profile I tend to pick is Custom install/select individual packages. (Recently I had to pick "Install Everything" to resolve a dependency conflict...and it still bugs me.)

      But the good part of the point is that there should be a "Basic Simple Desktop System in (select size)MB" option. I'm not saying that this would be an easy choice to create, merely that it's needed. (You could start by only listing a few possible choices, and then expanding it until eventually the user could type in the size desired.) And this should be a simple system. It's OK if this system only installs Gnome or KDE. It's OK if there's only one terminal program, and one browser. This is for folk who don't know their way around, so it's like "Simple Menus". But this SURE shouldn't be the only choice!

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:I could be wrong, but... by pod · · Score: 1
      Recently I had to pick "Install Everything" to resolve a dependency conflict...and it still bugs me.

      Recently (with RH7.2) I had to pick 'Install Everything' because the packages I selected crashed the installer when it was checking dependancy links. Crashed it. Consistantly. Then I had to spend an hour uninstalling all the crap I didn't want. That really bugged me.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
  21. step 3 by SHEENmaster · · Score: 2

    Program at school without attracting too much attention as my iBook tends to do.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:step 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could buy an old pentium 200 laptop for [less than] $100 and do it better..

    2. Re:step 3 by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Because a big, heavy, Pentium laptop is almost invisible and doesn't attract as much attention as an iBook. ...not.

    3. Re:step 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least a pick-pocket won't try to steal such a ugly brick.

    4. Re:step 3 by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      I think if a pick-pocket found an ugly brick in your pocket, he wouldn't hesitate to take it.

  22. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They are actually writing software (mostly cracks and hacking stuff), while you keep writing Press Releases and posting idiotic messages in Slashdot.

  23. Re:This year: good, next year: ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesn't look like free software will have a bad year for the forseeable future. More and more fortune 500 companies are converting to or seriously considering converting to Linux (in whole or part). And it's even more common in Europe. Not to mention the fact that many governments are in the process of or considering switching to Linux.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but free software is a growth area in IT and it will be until MS is ground to a shard of it's former self.

    In 20 years, the only people using MS will be home users. Games are MS's biggest advantage over Linux. That's the one area in which it is not making headway. MS PC's will essentially be X-Box v 5's by then. They will not be used for serious business applications.

  24. Re:CmdrTaco... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    To be fair, I've probably retroactively earned it. :)

  25. dude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Slashdot is just more corporate media out to make profit.

    If you want Free Speech and intelligent conversation search deep into the depths of Usenet. IT's in there if you look hard enough...

    But this place, well, it's just a relic of the dotcom era and as the economy plummets and the tech industry moves to third world countries where labor is easier to exploit they are only going to feel the pressure more and more.

    Usenet is not for profit and not owned by anyone, there is no moderation and no censorship, why don't you just go there and be happy?

    Slashdot is just a front for a run of the mill money grubbing corporation i don't know why you expect it to somehow up hold these ideals. They're just out to make a buck like every other corporate website.

    1. Re:dude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want Free Speech and intelligent conversation search deep into the depths of Usenet. IT's in there if you look hard enough...

      This is a popular myth, but a myth nonetheless. The last intelligent conversation died on Usenet shortly after the birth of AOL, in the dark days of perpetual September. I watched it die, and mourned during it's funeral. It's in newsgroup Heaven now, resting peacefully. Don't disturb it's remains with your talk of a living Usenet, lest it become a horrible zombie, a travesty of it's waking years. Or perhaps its too late, and it's undead hours are upon us. A tragedy, and a horror, for all of us who remember it in it's days of life. Don't disturb the Beast of Usenet. Let it rest in peace, if it still can.
      --
      AC

  26. GNU/Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    It's not GNU/Linux. The state of Linux was good. The state of GNU was probably also good since it piggybacked on Linux by definition. They are not the same thing, however. Why not say Linux and GNU? Why do you listen to that nutjob that says it must be called GNU/Linux?

    1. Re:GNU/Linux? by glenstar · · Score: 5, Funny

      To see how rapidly GNU's alternative to the Linux kernel is moving along, look at the Initial GNU HURD announcent in 1991 and the last announcement. Note the following phrase in the last announcement:"Popular PC devices are generally supported." What a fantastic 12 years it has been for GNU!

    2. Re:GNU/Linux? by tigga · · Score: 1
      To see how rapidly GNU's alternative to the Linux kernel is moving along, look at the Initial [gnu.org] GNU HURD announcent in 1991 and the last [gnu.org] announcement. Note the following phrase in the last announcement:"Popular PC devices are generally supported." What a fantastic 12 years it has been for GNU!



      Yep, everything's fine for Linux, but that GNU part is weird. Those FSF politicos pretend they have their own operation system - they even do not have their own Linux distribution.

    3. Re:GNU/Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU/Linux or RMS will tinkle his panties.

    4. Re:GNU/Linux? by uninet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just as a bit of info, here is why I use GNU/Linux in my articles covering Open Source/Free Software (including the one these comments are about). It's simply because I see GNU and Linux as two parts to our "success." If you take away GNU from Linux, you no longer have a working operating system. Likewise, if you take Linux away from GNU, you don't have a way to use all of your tools.

      Thus, we don't just have GNU or Linux, to have a real competition for other operating systems, we depend on GNU and Linux (GNU/Linux). Why not celebrate both major core components to our wonderful operating software?

      -Tim

      --
      -------------
      "You would not get a high grade for such a design" -- Andy Tanenbaum on Linus' Linux design.
    5. Re:GNU/Linux? by McGarnacle · · Score: 1

      To see how rapidly GNU's alternative to the Linux kernel is moving along, look at the Initial [gnu.org] GNU HURD announcent in 1991 and the last [gnu.org] announcement. Note the following phrase in the last announcement:"Popular PC devices are generally supported." What a fantastic 12 years it has been for GNU!

      Hehe..."prep.ai.mit.edu is 18.159.42, for the nameserver-impaired"

      But what about the ipv4 impaired? BTW, prep.ai.mit.edu resolves to something not even remotely similar to that "address".

      --

      I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to tell such LIES!

    6. Re:GNU/Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about other tools like KDE or GNOME? I doubt Linux would have the desktop success it has without either of these 2 environments, but I don't really want to call it GNU/Linux/KDE|GNOME.

      And what about Samba and Apache? Without these 2 products, Linux wouldn't have nearly the success it does now. Perhaps it should be GNU/Linux/Apache/Samba/KDE|GNOME?

  27. wrong on both counts by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First off, bad sex can be just bad. Trust me on this one.

    Secondly, I'm pretty sure the world's richest man has an easier time getting laid than someone who's posting on slashdot.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
    1. Re:wrong on both counts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll say. It was pretty bad when Commander Taco tried to suck my dick.

    2. Re:wrong on both counts by colmore · · Score: 3, Funny

      That man is all teeth...

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  28. Other reasions why 2002 was great by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Other reasions why 2002 was great:

    Phoenix 0.5 - http://mozilla.org/
    Chimera 0.6 - http://mozilla.org/
    The Open CD - http://www.TheopenCD.org
    GNU Win II - http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/en/index.html
    yEnc - http://www.yenc.org/

    --

    Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    1. Re:Other reasions why 2002 was great by ender81b · · Score: 1

      Wow. GNU Win II site is great! Nice collection of windows open source programs, thanks for the link. And jesus tap-dancing christ is Cygwin cool and useful.

    2. Re:Other reasions why 2002 was great by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      CYGWIN is very cool I use it on workstations at work as an X client to connect to some of our UNIX and Linux boxes. Sure beets paying for Reflection or Hummingbird.

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    3. Re:Other reasions why 2002 was great by QS6dot2 · · Score: 0

      ScummVM 0.3.0b - http://scummvm.sf.net
      Finally those three-headed monkeys invade Linux as well... ;-)

    4. Re:Other reasions why 2002 was great by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yEnc - http://www.yenc.org/

      Heh.

      "The efficient and CRC protected binary encoding for Usenet messages - public domain - now widely accepted"

      The "now widely accepted" part is in red. I guess they think if they say it enough it will become true.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    5. Re:Other reasions why 2002 was great by krs-one · · Score: 2

      Mozilla 1.0 - http://mozilla.org

      -Vic

  29. anecdotal evidence, plus rant re: video stuff by timothy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My step-brother (more than "computer literate" but not someone who likes to spend *all* his time tweaking his computers) told me at Thanksgiving that he's finally been mostly converted from Windows to Linux by Red Hat 8.0. He's a good example of how good 2002 has been, even with the crunch that some companies are going through.

    Red Hat and Mandrake (which I name only because they seem to be the most visible in non-specialist stores) both produce distros which are relatively sane to install, and come with far (*far*) more extra-Operating System software included than the obvious conventional competitors do.

    Which brings on an optimstic rant:

    The included software with the usual distros varies a lot, by category and in quality. Saying that RH8 has x-jillion packages, though, is nice for exploring, but not helpful when the one thing a potential user would like to use is not among the x-jillion.

    If Red Hat, or debian, or lycoris, or *any* distribution of [Linux + GNU utilities] were to come with an video editing app with ease of use approaching iMovie ... well, that is what would impress me most about the coming year in software. And I'd certainly count such an app being developed and made available via apt / apt4rpm ;)

    I think that Windows now comes with a video editing app as well. When will plugging in a firewire video camera for dumping footage in order to do simple, cut-and-paste scene rearrangment be as easy as it is under Mac OS? Hats off to the developers of Cinelerra, Kino, etc, but what I'd like to see is something like "Cinelerra Lite" , or perhaps "Cinelerra Ultralight" ;)

    Such a beast would have to be simple, reliable, fast, pleasant, and with the ability to save to VCD/SVCD for DVD-player compatibility, and to DiVX;) or other free video format for long play. Wouldn't it be nice to have a complete toolkit for making low-budget video production using all free software?

    This would also be a cool way to show off / play with the capabilities of Xiph's in-progress video format, eh? Eh, eh?!

    (iMovie, though a well-made app and IMO sufficient reason for non Mac users to try out the Mac OS, does not make it easy -- and is it even possible? -- to create VCDs or DiVX;) disks.) I'd love for someone to point me to a tutorial indicating otherwise :) This is not hypothetical -- I'd like to start converting family videos to digital format, editing down to reasonable / watchable lengths. Right now, this means I'm thinking of spending more than I'd ideally want to on a large external drive for my iBook, just for that one reason.

    All in all, thanks to the distro makers and application developers who have made GNU/Linux so much more accessible and friendly. Hope you have a good year!

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:anecdotal evidence, plus rant re: video stuff by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      ----My step-brother (more than "computer literate" but not someone who likes to spend *all* his time tweaking his computers) told me at Thanksgiving that he's finally been mostly converted from Windows to Linux by Red Hat 8.0. He's a good example of how good 2002 has been, even with the crunch that some companies are going through.

      If anything, Linux teaches you how your computer works.. Sometimes the hard way. Still, I use Win2k for extra-cirruclar stuff (read games). Linux still isn't there and will probably stay that way for a while.

      ----Red Hat and Mandrake (which I name only because they seem to be the most visible in non-specialist stores) both produce distros which are relatively sane to install, and come with far (*far*) more extra-Operating System software included than the obvious conventional competitors do.

      They're not even close to the earlier SuSE boxed kits. They "Only" had 6 cd's of shit. Usually, only 1/4'th of the tools actually worked. They didn't work well. When they finally went to "Pro edition" and "personal edition", I quit using them. However, Personal edition still meant 4 different types or word editing tools, 6 different emailers, 3 video players. None worked even mediocrely.

      ----Which brings on an optimstic rant:

      ----The included software with the usual distros varies a lot, by category and in quality. Saying that RH8 has x-jillion packages, though, is nice for exploring, but not helpful when the one thing a potential user would like to use is not among the x-jillion.

      Microsoft got this down pat. "There is only one choice and one way. That way is with us".

      At least, users wern't confused on how to do something. If they were, they could call over a neighbor and have them show it. There was never 20 million different ways to do something in Windows. Either thaey thought of it and made it a "feature" or "it didnt do that". Lack of choice is nicer for beginners and people who must use a computer.

      ----Such a beast would have to be simple, reliable, fast, pleasant, and with the ability to save to VCD/SVCD for DVD-player compatibility, and to DiVX;) or other free video format for long play. Wouldn't it be nice to have a complete toolkit for making low-budget video production using all free software?

      It seems we already have a good encoding-decoding base. That code base is the MPlayer base. It can do all you said and more. Someone needs to create a gui and basic editor for it. My guess was that Avery Lee would have done it by now (they guy who does VirtualDub)

      ----(iMovie, though a well-made app and IMO sufficient reason for non Mac users to try out the Mac OS, does not make it easy -- and is it even possible? -- to create VCDs or DiVX;) disks.)

      Nothing makes it easy to create correct (insert your color)-book VCD/SVCD standard mpegs. At least not what I've seen. Tsunami did make it easy, but I had quite a bit of crashes and other weird errors from going from .avi to (vcd)mpg

      ----timothy

      I'm very glad to see that a few editors still care about what happens "in the trenches". Good luck, and happy new year ;-)

    2. Re:anecdotal evidence, plus rant re: video stuff by ParisTG · · Score: 2

      And we can call it uMovie :).

      (u for UNIX, of course!)

    3. Re:anecdotal evidence, plus rant re: video stuff by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Nothing makes it easy to create correct (insert your color)-book VCD/SVCD standard mpegs.

      Have you tried avidemux? I've never given it a try to find out how well it works, but I noticed there's an option to save an avi/mpeg as vcd mpeg1.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    4. Re:anecdotal evidence, plus rant re: video stuff by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have been using Linux long time and Windows mostly for games - and a few years ago, I got a faster machine and a TV card for video captures, but later I found out that the video editing in Linux Just Isn't There Yet, while in Win98SE it's very much doable. A bit ago I found a program that captures video off the card and does not drop most of the frames and keeps audio almost in synch. Then the editing app...? Cinelerra is clumsy and doesn't know a thing - Every time I tried to open a file to it, it either crashed or said it has no idea about the format.

      I hope gstreamer stabilizes soon - once gstreamer is done, the video framework on free *NIX world will be a reality. But until then, there just isn't any nice programs to mess with, and I have to consider VirtualDub the Video Editor Built For My Use... =/

    5. Re:anecdotal evidence, plus rant re: video stuff by Puu · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone will insist it should be called GNU/Movie.

  30. Re:This year: good, next year: ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In other news, computers are expected to be twice as fast, and only weigh 1.5 tons.

    The point is you can't predict the future.

  31. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So subnet, already!

  32. Who is kidding who? by Woodrow+Stool · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft has $40B in the bank and is still making money like they have a license to print it.

    The Linux vendors have fallen to beg mode, "please give us money or we will vanish" (Mandrake). VA Linux Labs, now VA Software (stock symbol: LNUX) says "We are in no way a Linux company - we are a proprietary software company". Red Hat made a $300K profit last quarter, first ever, on a market cap of about $1B, what a complete joke.

    Yes, yes, we have Apache, we have MySQL, we have numerous charity cases, but there is no way in hell that this has been a "great year" for Linux. If you can't make a buck, you can't eat, and sooner or later, you will stop breathing.

    In the meantime, Borg-like entities like IBM (for Christ's sake) are adopting Linux (should I say "swallowing up Linux"?) and this is somehow a twisted victory for "the cause".

    I want to throw up.

    1. Re:Who is kidding who? by markov_chain · · Score: 3, Interesting
      We have:
      • mplayer/mencoder
      • open office
      • mozilla
      • gnome 2 and kde 3
      These apps make me very, very happy.

      I hope IBM is itching for revenge after OS/2.

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    2. Re:Who is kidding who? by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      >>I hope IBM is itching for revenge after OS/2.

      Why dosen't IBM just develop it's own distro (desktop)??? Think about it... A multi-billion company to backup a it's very own Linux distro.

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    3. Re:Who is kidding who? by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      >>please give us money or we will vanish (Mandrake)

      You ovbiously don't know jack about Linux. Everyone who does is well aware that Mandrake isn't a real company.

      Thus, it's a good thing that noone takes Mandrake seriously. Otherwise that damn dirty French company would be giving Linux a bad name.

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    4. Re:Who is kidding who? by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Maybe they learned their lesson with OS/2 :)

      --

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    5. Re:Who is kidding who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft has $40B in the bank and is still making money like they have a license to print it.

      Well, Microsoft comes pre-installed on all computers, pretty much. Since it seems many of those folks are going to the trouble to install Linux, that's a good sign for Linux.

      Really, if you buy a computer and take out the windows OS which is quite usable for some things, and go to the trouble of installing and configuring linux (or paying someone for it) that means there's real value there.

      The Linux vendors have fallen to beg mode, "please give us money or we will vanish" (Mandrake).

      Mandrake is _a_ linux vendor. Singular. But I don't sweat this because the new business models will sort themselves out. Besides, if you have to "beg for" (or rather "request") money, what's wrong with that? My local public Jazz station has fund drives every year and they've been around a long time. I don't care if they "beg" once a year.

      Yes, yes, we have Apache, we have MySQL, we have numerous charity cases, but there is no way in hell that this has been a "great year" for Linux. If you can't make a buck, you can't eat, and sooner or later, you will stop breathing.

      Yeah yeah, "feed my family", "can't make money on free software" blah blah. As if something has to "make money" in order to exist. Linux is just softwrae code, it's not going anywhere. If someone can't afford to hack linux, they can go flip burgers while some 16-year old steps in. And think about this: I recently deployed six FreeBSD servers for about HALF the cost of doing it with Windows. So Free software helps me feed _my_ family (which is just me right now but I have a big appetite :-).

      In the meantime, Borg-like entities like IBM (for Christ's sake) are adopting Linux (should I say "swallowing up Linux"?) and this is somehow a twisted victory for "the cause".

      Linux is under the GPL, remember? It can't be swallowed up. Each new installed Linux seat is a victory for Linux, as far as I'm concerned.

      I want to throw up.

      /me deftly steps 3 feet to the left.. :-)

    6. Re:Who is kidding who? by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you can't make a buck, you can't eat, and sooner or later, you will stop breathing.

      I think you're missing a big part of the picture.

      Financial advances are extremely important but aren't the only advances to take into consideration. All your arguments dealt with the "financial" state of linux and open source in general. Slashdot is a geek site, and so it's understandable that most people are discussing the technical changes for the year.

      In terms of technology, 2002 was an outstanding year for linux.

      Still, you brought up an important aspect few open source advocates are willing to discuss. That is, how does open source sustain its current growth?

      It is said that statiscally, by tomorrow or day after, Microsoft would have made more money than linux vendors make all year, given the market stays the same as it was last few years. That is, MS makes in 2 days what most linux companies make in a year. I hate to throw unchecked stats around, but even if this is remotely the case, then opensource companies have a long fight ahead of them.

      I believe open source users have to find ways to spend more on open source in the year 2003. Money is the life line of business, not good will. Yeah, it's free so why spend?

      Well if you "support" open source but you buy a dell desktop, a compaq ipaq, or you influence any buying decisions that acquire these things, then you all the open source advocacy is for nothing. Because your vote that really counts, your dollars, is going to Microsoft.

      --
      Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
    7. Re:Who is kidding who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because IBM doesn't want to put money into creating their own operating system.

      By being one of the only *large* advocates of Linux, their adoption scheme works almost as well as developing their own OS.

      So I guess the bottom line is that IBM pushes Linux because they don't have to develop it and put money into it, while reaping its benefits.

    8. Re:Who is kidding who? by adric · · Score: 1
      In Soviet Russia, all your base are belong to Natalie Portman's Beowulf cluster. Profit!
      Shouldn't that be a Beowulf cluster of hot grits? ;-)
      --
      not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
    9. Re:Who is kidding who? by Micah · · Score: 2

      FWIW, Red Hat seems to be doing well with its Advanced Server and paid up2date subscriptions. Not to mention RHCE certs. I think RHAT will be doing just fine over the next year.

      And a $300K profit is a lot better than a loss, which many $1B+ public companies have these days!!!

    10. Re:Who is kidding who? by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      [Some Linux vendors are struggling] ....and this is somehow a twisted victory for "the cause"


      Well, yes. Linux, like all open source software, is a cultural phenomenon, not a corporation, and so its success should be measured by how ubiquitously it is used, not by how much money any particular company is making or losing while trying to sell it.


      Your post makes no more sense than trying to judge the success of Microsoft based on how many people are working on the Windows source code.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:Who is kidding who? by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 2

      I am willing to bet that 85-90% of all the great software we have for Linux would still be around even if the "big boys with the deep pockets" had not come around. I think it is a detriment to the open source community that the "need to make money" people have shown up to the party -- because everyone is looking at success as the people who can make more money. Anything else is failure -- I could have saved all the companies lots of money by telling them to take there millions elseware if they were looking to add to them.....OTOH, if they wanted to "donate" there money to the cause then that is fine with me....Yet as I have said many times -- Imagine what could have happened if you split those millions up amongst the people that make quality for the "scratch the itch" of it...to spend on pizza and beer....

      --
      (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
    12. Re:Who is kidding who? by Nidoizo · · Score: 1
      The Linux vendors have fallen to beg mode, "please give us money or we will vanish" (Mandrake). VA Linux Labs, now VA Software (stock symbol: LNUX) says "We are in no way a Linux company - we are a proprietary software company". Red Hat made a $300K profit last quarter, first ever, on a market cap of about $1B, what a complete joke.

      Yes, yes, we have Apache, we have MySQL, we have numerous charity cases, but there is no way in hell that this has been a "great year" for Linux. If you can't make a buck, you can't eat, and sooner or later, you will stop breathing.


      Well, to me it's a proof of how much open source is successful, not the opposite. Freedom, it's all free software is about. If we are able to have the quality we have right now (and always improving) without making anyone insanely rich like Microsoft is doing with Windows and Office, than it's great.

      Yes, we need companies like Red Hat to make profits because they need to stay there. But hey, they are making profits by selling Linux! Linux market continues to grow and I think we can afford to have less distributors. Except because of temporary economic difficulties, we can expect to see revenues of distributors to grow.

      Yes, Linux is taking more market share to other Unixes than Windows, but again, it seems good to me. If Sun, IBM, HP, etc. can put more effort in free software than prioritary software, it's a win for us.

      Since I've installed RH 5.2 few years ago, I've been really impressed by open source software progress year after year. Today, I'm a Linux developer and my compagny plans to switch from Irix to Linux over the next year. Almost everytime I download a Windows software, I see also a Linux version with a smile. It's like a few years ago dream.

      Wal Mart selling Linux PCs... Honestly, how could it be better (considering time needed for change)? We have no idea when Linux progress will stop and its current state is already impressive. Isn't all geeks premonitions coming true for now?

      In the next weeks, I'll buy a friend PC, install Windows for my girlfriend and install Linux for myself. My first install without dual boot, and I'm not afraid to switch back to or adding Windows if necessary, 'cause looking at Linux progress, I'm more and more confident that someday, if it's not already the case, free software will offer a complete and poweful alternative to prioritary software for simple desktop users. I don't want my children to pay for an operating system at a dictated price and year after year, I'm more reassured.

    13. Re:Who is kidding who? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Controversy sure is the bread and butter of Slashdot. Okay.

      Microsoft has $40B in the bank and is still making money like they have a license to print it.

      Wow. Jump up and down, clap hands. And they differ from fallen industry "angels" IBM, DEC, Compaq, Cisco in *what* way again? Making money this year doesn't say much about what happens over the next few years...in the computer world, market leaders have been turned to chutney in that amount of time. The point is that, while they have a lead, Linux is finally a viable alternative for many people, and gaining strongly in seats used.

      Remember, MS makes more money per installed seat than, say, Red Hat. So if RH makes $10M in revenue in a year, and MS makes $500M, RH may still have more users. Are we at that point yet? Nope. Are we getting there? Yup.

      MS is a much older company than RH. They're established, and they have a lot of money.

      The same thing was true of IBM and MS a few years back.

      In the meantime, Borg-like entities like IBM (for Christ's sake) are adopting Linux (should I say "swallowing up Linux"?) and this is somehow a twisted victory for "the cause".

      Who cares if IBM has influence? IBM makes some great products. They happen to charge an arm and a leg, but they get their revenue from hardware and services, not software. They appear quite willing to let the software world do its own thing, and just fund parts of it that are most beneficial to it.

    14. Re:Who is kidding who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If IBM put their name on it, they would have to give it IBM-style support.

      That would basically mean a fork of Linux, freezing APIs, bringing it up to IBM 'standards', customer-driven rather than developer-driven features and so on. That would piss off almost everyone involved in Linux.

      Far better to sell it and point fingers at RedHat if the customer gets pissy.

      Plus, IBM currently uses the support angle as a differencator between Linux (loss-leader) and their numerous proprietary OSes (very profitable).

    15. Re:Who is kidding who? by penguinboy · · Score: 2

      there is no way in hell that this has been a "great year" for Linux. If you can't make a buck, you can't eat, and sooner or later, you will stop breathing.

      Linux has been around for ten years now (and OSS even longer than that). It started out without focusing on making money and it will continue to exist as long as there are hackers with free time to code. Development might slow, but Linux isn't going to just vanish.

    16. Re:Who is kidding who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you mean Free Software has been around
      for very long, not "OSS" which is 3-4 years old.


      Let's not forget who should take credit. There
      was no OSS back in the early 90's when I switched
      to Linux-only: almost everything back then
      was a gift from the GNU project.

    17. Re:Who is kidding who? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I hate to throw unchecked stats around, but even if this is remotely the case, then opensource companies have a long fight ahead of them.

      I think we all knew that. What amazes me is just how frigging many of them there are. There's no way the market can support as many commercial distros as there currently are.

      I'll stick my head out and predict that 2003 will see the herd thinned somewhat: I can't see a good future for Mandrake (as a company). Out of Lindows, Lycoris and Xandros, only one will remain (I'd bet Xandros). Geographical dominance will continue to be the name of the game, with Redhat taking America and parts of Europe, and SuSE taking Europe and parts of America, Conectiva in Latin America etc.

      On the other hand, those that remain will be stronger, which can't be a bad thing. RedHat will start making money reliably I hope - their standing themselves in good stead for taking over the corporate desktop at this rate.

      Hmm, while I've got the post comment page open, I'd just like to throw in some anecdotal evidence of my own. I started using Linux in early January of last year, so I've seen exactly a year pass in Linuxland. The progress I've seen is unbelievable: Linux got pretty artwork, got usability, speed, good fonts, a good office suite, a good web browser (moz1.0), KDE3, GNOME2 (and GTK2) and an easy to use "just works" version of Wine came out (no, really!), and finally I started my own project [grin]

      It'll be fascinating to see where 2003 gets us. Look out Microsoft!

    18. Re:Who is kidding who? by alienw · · Score: 2

      Nice troll. However, you can't measure the success of Linux by how much money it makes. It is a non-profit cause, and as such can not make money. You can't sell Linux, you sell products and services based on it. Considering that nearly everything in the distro is free software, I can't see how monetary measurments can show success or failure.

    19. Re:Who is kidding who? by MeNeXT · · Score: 2
      For the last 8 years I have heard this argument and yet OS software is still growing. I believe what will kill Microsoft is exactly what you have mentioned. Those profit margins and the hoard of ca$h sitting in their bank. They have to create value for the shareholder. I will not get into ecconomics of the situation. All I can say is that the barriers which have stopped Linux are coming down. First was the GUI, next, the Office apps, then the email clients and now the fonts. What critical software is missing? None that I can see.


      As average people start to realise the $$$ saving in going the Linux/OS route the MS profit margins will come down. Shareholders will not like what they see and start moving money to other options. Price of stock will drop. Investors will panic and down goes the giant.


      The return in investment is not always measured in SALES. It can also be measured in cost reductions and other such profit generating initiatives. I'll give you an example...If Ford hired a programmer to improve one aspect of Linux that would save Ford more than what it cost to hire the programmer then this cost reduction would not be included in the Linux sales figures. This cost would not be incured by the Linux distributors either and would help keep the cost of Linux less than the cost of Windows. Given enough companies with enough incentive's to reduce costs then we can have FREE software from that point on. (Yes someone will try to get control, we just have to make sure no one does)


      There is not enough room here to get into the nitty gritty details within this forum. I can also seen a few flaws in my statements because they are over simplified. Microsoft will still be around. They just will not command such a large market share.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    20. Re:Who is kidding who? by Etyenne · · Score: 2

      My employer (a Linux integrator) had been doing pretty well. We doubled the staff and I received a 10% raise. So apparently they are way to eat selling Linux.

      Yes, some Linux distributor (Mandrake, Caldera, etc) are having difficulties but unlike what you think some are doing well. You may believe that RedHat is a joke, but they are showning a profit not even 3 years after their IPO. We can't say such a thing of most dot.bomb of the time !

      --
      :wq
    21. Re:Who is kidding who? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Well... what office groupware exists for Linux? One problem with using Linux at work is that I don't get meeting announcements. We use Novell GroupWise, and I can get to the server via http, but the http client doesn't announce that you have an up-comming meeting, or even that someone has invited you. At least I haven't figured out how to cause this to happen.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    22. Re:Who is kidding who? by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      You wanna abuse stock and revenue statistics to make a false point? Here are a few for you:

      Microsoft's share price had it's worst year ever last year. Admittedly, that just means it hasn't doubled. Yeah, they've got a license to print money all right. Uh-huh. Suuurre they do. They're bumping their heads against something. It could be a revenue ceiling (saturated markets) or they could be losing ground thanks to Product Activation, high license fees, and inroads made by alternatives like Linux. Having twice seen the industry migrate away from proprietary restrictions like copy protection and mainframe-era protections, I'd be willing to declare Ediron's Law: People will pay extra for piracy-enabling technologies. Hmm... divx makes three. By 2004, we'll hopefully see TurboTax as a latest example of people flooding away from copy-protection. It'll take another year or two to be obvious about Microsoft, because they're too intertwined into businesses today to be abandoned immediately.

      Yeah, Red Hat's profit is 300k. But that's not sad. That's not 300k in revenue. That's 300k left over after paying their entire staff professional-grade salaries. It isn't 300k divvied up among them all, or anything else pathetic like you seem to believe. That was on 24 million in revenue. In 3 months. 100 Million in revenue off free software is the diametric opposite of pathetic, in my view. It's Fscking miraculous. They're also reporting a 14-21% revenue growth curve (looking back a quarter and a year, respectively). This means, since costs are headed downward, they will likely see profitability continue to climb.

      What's more, since Red Hat's officially in the black, a whole segment of nay-sayers just got a key argument silenced: RED HAT WILL BE AROUND IN A FEW YEARS. That makes it easier for Red Hat to win contracts.

      Red Hat's market cap means the free market believes they're a billion dollar company. So what if you disagree, they haven't lost 99% of their net worth like a lot of firms I can name:

      Red Hat's market cap and share price has done a lot better than all those other nice companies like Lucent, AT & T, (insert litany of telecom names), (insert litany of dot-bomb names), (insert litany of software firms).

      (Now, flaming my overall favorite Linux flavor for a moment... )

      The fact that Mandrake can't pull their own market up is their own damn stupidity on marketing. I WOULD LOVE TO BUY a Mandrake product. Each new version's ISO goes online a month ahead of any retail copy. Further, each new version NEVER GETS TO A STORE NEAR ME. I can't blame them on the latter, but the first one is just sheer idiocy. I won't wait a month, and I won't buy something a month after I've burned the ISO's.

      Mandrake can fix this, or even invert the timeline completely, and I wouldn't complain a bit. Most profitable: sell their new release for 30 days before setting out free ISO downloads. Or they could restrict downloads for 30 days. Or (heaven forbid) they could adhere to a 'right way', and fix their product stream and have the disks available for purchase and shipment immediately upon release, and keep everyone happy. I know I'd pay $50 to avoid a few days of iso-hunting. Fact is, they could do ANYTHING akin to this, and I'd buy it. However, paying for something I already have installed legally is nothing more than charity. Work and charity shouldn't overlap, in my opinion. I say make your money, then spend your profits however you see fit (including charitable acts).

      (please, Mandrake, grab a clue here. You're doing this so badly that I find myself making annoyed anti-frog remarks like I do when your nation legislates your language, it seems so incompetent!)

      I don't pay attention to VA lately (their preassembled machines running linux cost enough more than bare boxen that it also looks like charity). Shame. The one machine of theirs I bought had a hefty chassis. I just can't convince anyone I work for to pay the hefty surcharge they want for that hardware.

      IBM has always been about embracing the strongest competition. They are strongest when they act like the diametric opposite of NIH-syndrome (Not Invented Here, or Not In House) shops like HP. It would be impossible to swallow up linux, though. This would be like inhaling too much air (only more so, since technically air is limited. Free software isn't).

      I don't even know any of the activists behind linux, but my view is that the cause, for most people, is to create good software, get it widely used, and make a decent living (not a rape-n-pillage 95% royalty like MSFT's per-package markup). In other words, even if Microsoft embraces linux *appropriately*, it'd be a victory. System prices would go down, code robustness and flexibility would go up, and linux systems would be deployed where needed and not be denied because 'linux isn't legitimate'.

      While proofing this, it occurs to me that *either* version of Divx proves my point about the perceived value of piracy-enabling technologies. I was talking about the pay-per-play DVD's, but the new one has such a rabid following that it makes an interesting case, too.

      Last of all, it occurs to me that you're a troll. Unfortunately, nobody seems to get it on the moderations, so I'm still going to post this.

  33. Linux Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Create an OS with lots of command line tools, including a compiler (!)
    2. ???
    3. Claim the year was good for whatever you've created in that arcane platform

  34. The best thing by jsse · · Score: 5, Funny

    happened for Linux in 2002 was that our boss put himself into this situation:

    PHB: "It's a well known fact that Linux is developed by a bunch of ameutars, a toy.", in a meeting with big Boss and many others, "There's no proof in saying that Windows server is unstable! Look at our file server, it hasn't had a single downtime since it started!"
    another non-PHB: "but sir, but your staffs told me that it's actually a Linux running Samba service."
    PHB: "Is it?!...."

    He should have talked to us more.

    1. Re:The best thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      happened for Linux in 2002 was that our boss put himself into this situation

      Don't you DARE call it Linux. It's GNU/Linux.

      (yes, this was sarcasm)

    2. Re:The best thing by WetCat · · Score: 1

      Sorry to bother you, but
      what does "PHB" mean?

    3. Re:The best thing by jsse · · Score: 3, Informative

      what does "PHB" mean?

      Pointy-Haired-Boss, as in Dilbert. Refers to dumb bosses who don't know how to manage their people

    4. Re:The best thing by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Sorry to bother you, but what does "PHB" mean?

      He's the person who is in charge of all the PFY's who post to /.

    5. Re:The best thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a dick.

  35. Ninnle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still no mention of that new distribution I hear about every so often. Doesn't anybody else use Ninnle Linux?

  36. Re: Other reasons why 2002 was great by dmelomed · · Score: 1

    Free Unix other than Linux:
    FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD developments such as built-in zero-copy in NetBSD, faster pipes, and verified exec. softupdates improvements in all three. The dirpref and dirhash FS improvements. Unified FS buffer cache and SMP in NetBSD-current.

    And of course the OpenBSD project has been good with OpenSSH, except for the exploit and trojan problems they had in 2002 year.

  37. And for those of you who use Mozilla Mail... by Dthoma · · Score: 1

    The Mozilla 1.3 alpha has built-in anti-spam software. Just wait for it to go stable, and you'll have another demonstrably cool feature.

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

    1. Re:And for those of you who use Mozilla Mail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozz has quite a few umm..... lets say quirks that could do with fixing.

      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_fo rm at=&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&lon g_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type =allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_ty pe=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type =allwords&keywords=&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSI GNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailassigned_to1=1&email type1=exact&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailrepor ter2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailtype2=exact&email2= &bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=100&changedin=&ch fieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&field0-0-0= noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&order=bugs.votes,b ugs.bug_id

      Some pick bugs are...

      NTLM support,
      Spell checker.
      Link should become :visited color, when visited..
      Type something in one tab location bar, change tabs, change backagain and guess what, it's gone...

      Spam filters live in my mail server

  38. Feel the code, don't count the cash by posternutbaguk · · Score: 1

    Not really a good year for Linux companies maybe, most of them still don't seem to be able to make much money. But GNU/Linux weren't started to make money for anybody, just to make a better computer system. It's my perception that almost all the distro's and software that I use improved this year, to the point that some of my non-geek friends were impressed with Linux. So...a good year for the Free Software Community, and for those that use their products. My prediction for 2003? Better software, more choice and slashdot still to be around...

  39. It means: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Pointy Haired Boss". It arose from the Dilbert comic strip.

  40. Re:This year: good, next year: ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I'm moving away from free software as fast as my little legs will carry me.

    As a web monkey I started on ASP, and moved to PHP because (I estimate) it saved me 20% coding time.

    Now I'm moving back to ASP.NET because, once again, it saves me 20% keyboard time over PHP.

    I'm not discounting the possibility of a swing the other way, but it had better be something amazing (functional programming, perhaps) to beat out MS's Java-inspired libraries, Delphi-inspired environemnt, and Visual environment.

  41. I don't bother with Helvetica. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I just ripped the Tahoma font off my MS Office CDs, and voila! A lovely sans-serif font which doesn't need that anti-aliasing crap.

    1. Re:I don't bother with Helvetica. by CheeseCow · · Score: 1

      You can get "Verdana" for free from sourceforge. It looks very nice in small size with no anti-aliasing.

  42. it is rather hard by SHEENmaster · · Score: 2

    to put a brick back into someone's pocket without their knowledge

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  43. And not just during the *install* by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But afterwards too. I've recently installed Mandrake 9.0 and it installs *seven* terminal programs. Seven? What on earth does the geekiest geek on God's green earth need *seven* terminal programs for?

    Here's the deal, either you don't give a damn and will use whatever default shows up in your prefered enviroment, or you have a fave that you just can't live without for some reason and you'll manually install it from the CD anyway. If you're that picky you're sophisticated enough already to handle this.

    If you're *not* that sophisticated the plethora of choices of terminal programs is at best confusing, and getting rid of the unwanted ones ( if you can even figure out which ones are unwanted, and why) may well be a somewhat daunting task.

    Because free software is free as in beer to the distro makers they can throw in everything including seven "kitchen sinks," so they do. This doesn't mean it's a Good Idea.

    I've got something of a rep as an Ubergeek in meatspace, but even I don't want a distro that just dumps the entire universe of software (including some pretty alpha stuff) on my HD just to prove it can.

    Here's what I want to see in a default desktop install. A choice of KDE or Gnome ( I use a couple of others as well, but I'm perfectly content to install those seperately after I'm up and running for a bit), ONE terminal, preferably the default for the enviroment. ONE office package, preferably the default for the enviroment. A basic collection of utilities and, well, that's about it.

    Clean, simple, and covering about 99.9% of all typical desktop funtions in one go, with no cruft.

    For a newb throw in a special section in the manual explaining that one of the things free software is about is choice, how the CD's offer them many extras to play around with if they want, and clear, simple directions on how to install, and *UN*install, them.

    Kinda like installing Windows, only better.

    Installing a system should be an additive process, not like hacking away at a mighty oak with a chainsaw to release the inner OS.

    Small is Beautiful.

    KFG

    1. Re:And not just during the *install* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Gentoo.

    2. Re:And not just during the *install* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gentoo and the Sourcerer variants sound great for that. Debian should be just about as good.

    3. Re:And not just during the *install* by Red+Warrior · · Score: 1

      Amen. Keep the plethora of choices in the "expert" install (or just on the CD), and just put 1 each "vanilla" xterm, ftp client, etc. Newbs will be happy. Geeks will still be able to make it just the way they want. That being said, 2002 was great. Mandrake 8.2 got my home system 100% Linux and 0% MS. And there was much rejoicing. -

      --
      "If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
      ~Epictetus
    4. Re:And not just during the *install* by Satai · · Score: 3, Informative

      What on earth does the geekiest geek on God's green earth need *seven* terminal programs for?

      I can see up to four being useful.

      1. KDE -- konsole. This for integration with KDE; having it in the konq window and so forth.
      2. GNOME -- gterminal, for full integration with a GNOME desktop.
      3. Eterm/Aterm/rxvt for colorful, purty output, for mutt sessions and the like.
      4. Xterm, for that one application that needs the tektronix emulation, or the peculiar mouse button behavior.

      BUT, yes, all in all it's overkill. Anybody that needs tektronix emulation can sure as hell grab it themself, ya know? (And yes, I know xterm is part of the XFree86 distribution. :)

    5. Re:And not just during the *install* by starback · · Score: 1

      You seem to assume that only one user will use the computer. That is true for many computers, but not
      all, by a long shot.

    6. Re:And not just during the *install* by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What on earth does the geekiest geek on God's green earth need *seven* terminal programs for?

      I can see up to four being useful.

      ..and I (for one) see this as symptomatic of the fundamental problem with Linux: No Standardization.

      Okay, maybe some people like having six or seven window managers to argue over. Frankly, it all looks like a steaming pile to me. You guys want to take over from windoze? Then figure out who's going to be the UI czar for Linux, get a standard written, and excoriate any app writer who doesn't conform to the UI guidelines.

      Want to know why Apple's got the best GUI in the world? It's because Mac users don't tolerate sloppy UI work.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:And not just during the *install* by puppetluva · · Score: 2

      I know what you mean. . . I've been waiting for distros to realize that less is more for some time.

      ln -s /bin/less /bin/more

      Can people possibly still prefer the old PAGER?

    8. Re:And not just during the *install* by bicho · · Score: 1

      well... Linux is still a multi-user operating system, hence a need to have more than one kind of a program be loadable.
      And terminals are not kitchen sinks, they're bathrooms.
      I have two bathrooms in my house, because at one time there were 7 people living here.
      Now that three of my brothers are married, I prefer to bath in just one of them, but my mom likes the other better,
      Hence Linux and the PC is the house.

      However, if its for a PC that only one person will use, perhaps an installation that would ask you for one app of a kind to install for each app where there are more than one, would be nice (with a check-box to over rule the only one app of a kind for each kind)

      --

      errera hunamum ets
    9. Re:And not just during the *install* by HiThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are problems, and then there are problems.

      As problems go, lack of standardardization is smaller than standardization. Another word for standardization is monopoly. Another word for lack of standardization is choice.

      That said, it makes sense for a default simplified install to pick a single selection. But there's sure no reason for every distro to pick the same one. What's needed is open file formats, and api specs. And those we've got. The apps that don't work well will tend to drop away, through lack of maintenance if nothing else.

      Still, that's different from saying that they should all be installed. But I've experienced problems adding apps, e.g., OpenMotif, after the install rather than during it. If I tell the installer to install it, then it is somehow handled, but if I tried to add it later, then I got what seemed an unlimited number of application conflict messages, and even compiling from source didn't fix it. Still, this isn't a basic install we're talking about here. (I eventually ended up with "install everything", and then it worked, but I'm sure that there was a simpler approach, if I'd been able to figure it out.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:And not just during the *install* by MamasGun · · Score: 1

      http://www.lycoris.com/ . That is, if you like KDE. They choose one app for each function you might want. Installs in 15 minutes on a PIII. If you want to be able to reconfigure the kernel and/or develop with it you must install the "Devtools" disk, but the default install is on one disk.

      BTW I like Mandrake 9 for the very reason you are bitching about it: choice. Lycoris chooses which app of every app you use, Mandrake allows ME to choose. Yeah, there are multiple choices for apps, but it allows me to decide which app is "best of breed" for me.

      --
      "But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever....In the digital world, we don't need back-ups..."
      -- Jack Valenti
    11. Re:And not just during the *install* by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      And xterm would still be the best one if only it would support the clipboard copy/paste.

      What's up with that anyway?

    12. Re:And not just during the *install* by Sun+Tzu · · Score: 2

      My biggest problem with Red Hat 8 was the GNOME terminal. It scrolls verrryyy Slooooollly. I play starship traders in telnet mode and it was like playing through a 4800 bps modem on a 128/512 DSL connection. I switched the shell icon to run the KDE Konsole and now have the best of both worlds -- fast, low-cpu telnet and no-effort anti-aliased fonts. Woohoo!

      Red Hat 8 is a hint at desktop Linux's future.

    13. Re:And not just during the *install* by LeBleu · · Score: 1

      Although I disagree with jcr (the grandparent post) on how much UI standardization is a good thing for Linux, I think it is wrong to state that standardization == monopoly and lack of standardization == choice. Standards are good to a point, like when making sure things work together (e.g. KDE and GNOME using the same API for things to appear in the "system tray"), and even having some UI standards would be really nice. (Like having a standard on whether the OK or Cancel button should be on the left, so people don't get confused moving between KDE and GNOME applications.) But, there is no reason to eliminate the differences between all the window managers our there just to make them all work in a standard way either, as long as the default ones on any desktop oriented distro are clear and easy to learn.

      If you have experienced problems adding apps after the install rather than during it, then you need to use a better distribution. Either whatever distribution you used has a seriously messed up package system, or you just tried to grab random packages later on, rather than choosing ones from the same install media or the same distro as you had installed.

      I have been using Debian for quite awhile now, and in fact have only installed it on each of my machines once. After that, not only was I able to install new software later without issues, but I was able to upgrade smoothly to newer releases of the distribution. (From version 2.1, to 2.2, to 3.0 now, without any re-installs.)

      --
      --LeBleu

      If you're reading this you're part of the mass hallucination that is Kevin the Blue.

    14. Re:And not just during the *install* by jcr · · Score: 2

      Another word for lack of standardization is choice.

      Oh, please.

      Go read Don Hopkins' essay, "The X-Windows Disaster" at http://www.art.net/studios/Hackers/Hopkins/Don/uni x-haters/x-windows/disaster.html

      Sure, you're free to choose from all of the window managers you want, and even to write your own, but the upshot is that if I want to write any GUI app for Linux, I can't rely on the environment, so it might look fine under window manager A, and look like crap under window manager B. The overall effect: Linux looks like a half-assed amateur effort.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    15. Re:And not just during the *install* by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Small is Beautiful

      Your post would have been great had you left this point out.

      When I look at guys, I am not looking for small. I believe that females would also agree with me on this point.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    16. Re:And not just during the *install* by korgull · · Score: 1

      Better too many than too little. Install Windows and see how far you get without installing anything else besides that disc.
      You probably won't even have a program to unzip your archives :-)

    17. Re:And not just during the *install* by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      Well, this is rather late but ...

      but the upshot is that if I want to write any GUI app for Linux, I can't rely on the environment, so it might look fine under window manager A, and look like crap under window manager B

      Um, Window managers manage windows - they put pretty little borders around them, say where they should go, aid resizing and closing, and maybe provide lists of running tasks/frequently used apps and a nice desktop background.

      What they don't do is have anything to do with the toolkits you'd be using to write the GUI app - that's what your toolkit libraries are there for!! If I take an app written using GTK, it will look exactly the same whether I run it in Blackbox, Windowmaker, IceWM, TWM, or even if I don't have a windowmanager running at all! (KDE and GNOME are "desktop environments" and are a little bit different as they provide development tools and libraries that add on all kinds of unneccessary crap ... but these aren't window managers)

      The only criteria for your app to display as you wanted it to is for everyone to have the toolkit libraries, and if they don't have the neccessary libraries then your app ain't gonna display at all :)

      So I'm not sure what you meant. BTW - I did read the article you referenced - and I'm not impressed. Some of it is out-of-date (Hell, X gets criticised for intitially being designed to run xterm, xload and xclock!!), much of it is polemic (I loved the line about being "archaic enough to use vi") and although I've never used X to remotely administer a box, there's many slashdotters who routinely state that this is X's greatest feature, not greatest detraction as this article claims. *shrug* I'm not saying the guy doesn't have some valid points, but X has come a long way since the days of motif and xclock, and XFree 4.0 fixed up a lot of the dross and sped things up enormously. If I wrote an article on windows stability and security, based solely upon Windows 95, would you take me seriously??

      The overall effect: Linux looks like a half-assed amateur effort.

      Well, that's because it is one!! It's a true cast-of-thousands production. But does it matter what something looks like if it gets the job done??

    18. Re:And not just during the *install* by vulgrin · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. But to make this worthwhile - we really need to work on the install process. Maybe I'm a newB, or dont RTFM but I just found erpmi the other day, and thought it was a godsend. But where the heck is a UI for this? I haven't found one.

      Now while I am thoroughly enjoying going back to the CL, Windows has trained me to always look to the GUI first, and I would think something as important as a "go find the software, its dependancies" and install it would be pretty damn useful to other newbies...

      --
      I sig, therefore I am.
  44. Re:This year: good, next year: ? by Raiford · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Free Software will have a bad year when it is no longer free. The question is how long can free software that is entering an enterprise arena remain just that: Free ! Unfortunately the way that distributers are working such as RedHat I think the line between free/not-free will become somewhat blurry and then you will get the dilution effect that comes from corporate preferences.

    --
    "player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
  45. to me, Sharp is not a success story--yet by g4dget · · Score: 4, Informative
    The stated premise behind both the Sharp Zaurus GUI and KDE is that non-commercial open source efforts simply can't deliver a high quality GUI--open source supposedly needs companies like Troll Tech to help with GUIs. If that is true, I think it really calls into question the entire open source effort.

    However, I don't think it's true. First of all, owning a Zaurus myself, I find its use of QPE the biggest problem with the device--it means I can't use it for what I primarily want to use a Linux PDA for: running regular Linux software. Almost any software that uses a GUI needs to get ported. I can't script with my favorite scripting environments (Tcl/Tk, wxPython, fltk-lua), I can't use my favorite image display programs, etc.

    Fortunately, the folks at handhelds.org have been working busily on putting together a high-quality X11-based handheld distribution. And the Opie versions of the Sharp/QPE applications have been recompiled for X11.

    To me, Sharp will be a success story when it really does run the entire Linux environment: command line and graphical. Let's hope that in 2003, Sharp will base their Linux distribution on X11. Because of Qt/X11, the user experience and applications will remain unchanged (well, things may actually get a little faster with X11, but that's not going to be that important on a 400MHz XScale).

    1. Re:to me, Sharp is not a success story--yet by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 2
      Quote: The stated premise behind both the Sharp Zaurus GUI and KDE is that non-commercial open source efforts simply can't deliver a high quality GUI

      For your information both of the most popular linux desktop have strong commercial ties.

      It just isn't open-source versus commercial anymore. People need to get out of this mindset. Ximian puts a lot of money into GNOME, and GNOME would not have been as far along as it had without their full time programmers.

      Do yourself a favor. Sit down one of those days and map out (i) Who are the most prominent open source programmers, and (ii) What commercial entity is sponsering them, if any.

      It's a little game called "follow the money". You'd be surprise how much of open source relies on commercial backing. Look at all the developers Redhat, IBM, and others are putting on the kernel. Don't you think that Transmeta is in one way or the other facilitating Linus's work on the kernel? Even if it isn't part of his job title? I'd guess that they are.

      And that's not a bad thing.

      Quote:open source supposedly needs companies like Troll Tech to help with GUIs.

      It doesn't need TrollTech, but any help should be appreciated, I'd say. If that is true, I think it really calls into question the entire open source effort.

      No it doesn't. Not in any way, shape or form. Open source and commercial can co-exist fine.

      By the way as a zaurus owner, I agree with your main point. Zaurus should have at least shipped with a X-server in the ROM.

      --
      Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  46. Horray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open source rules.

  47. 2 cents by ScubaS · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Not only is this an amazing story, but it really is noteworthy in its own respect to see how it overall leads one to conclude that the free software community is having alot of trouble taking off; seeing how it is surprising to realize that there is this subconcious fact brewing in everyone's mind which leads them towards an description; having no sense of what success is using rhetoric to spread sacreligious beliefs and views about the way it should be done, considering Lennon was using tactics approximately close to what could be described as an apparant reason contrasted to the opposistion's arguments, then branching off another seemingly apparant and obvious reason in contrast to the defense of the argument, and continuing this way we see a pattern which is not to help those in any way, but rather to destroy capitolism, and that was his goal -- and people bought into that, and most have failed.

  48. Hellz yeah by HungWeiLo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's all good. It's all right. Fsck all day. Fsck all night.

    Sorry...

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    1. Re:Hellz yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fscking is for all the poor fools that haven't switched to ext3.

  49. New to linux by r_arr · · Score: 1

    AS someone who switched to linux, I found it easy and pain free. I've tried two different disto's suse and mandrake. Each one has positives and negatives. Overall with programs like kde3 and programs like openoffice and gimp, I find myself using windows less and less.

  50. no more dragonball processors? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 2

    That means that palms finally broke the "33mhz barrier"

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:no more dragonball processors? by jsse · · Score: 2, Informative

      Argh...sorry I checked Tungsten/T uses Texas Instruments OMAP1510 processor (an enhanced ARM-based processor), not StrongArm sorry.

      Not so sure about the clock speed, but you can check here.

    2. Re:no more dragonball processors? by Type-R · · Score: 1

      Uh, palms broke the 33mhz barrier last year (Sony Clie's) I think the StrongArm's (ARM9) are ~100mHz.

  51. W-h-a-t?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't tell if this thing should be modded up to 4 or down -1, Troll. But why are you bitching about it here? If free speech is that important to you, stay on Usenet. /.'s owned by a corporation; Usenet isn't.

  52. Linux doesn't need money by David+Jao · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Your facts are all correct, but what you are forgetting in this instance is that free software, unlike commercial proprietary software, does not need corporate financial support in order to progress and improve.

    A commercially backed OS like MacOS or OS/2 or NextStep will die without corporate success, but Linux already has more developers working for it for free than MacOS or OS/2 or NextStep ever did for pay.

    The only way Linux and its free software friends will ever die is if laws like the SSSCA are passed to make it illegal.

    1. Re:Linux doesn't need money by starX · · Score: 3, Funny

      The only way Linux and its free software friends will ever die is if laws like the SSSCA are passed to make it illegal.

      That law is way too extreme, the only way it could possibly pass is if we had a corporation bought president whose party has complete control of congress, and whose congressional leaders are on good friendly terms with him.

      Oh wait...

      Well in any case, the only way it wouldn't get struck down is if we had a judiciary filled with ultra-conservatives who promote corporate interests at every turn, and THAT won't happen unless...

      Oh crap.

    2. Re:Linux doesn't need money by NineNine · · Score: 1, Troll

      You're right... free software doesn't need financial support to continue. There will always be a fresh group of young, naive, impressionable college kids to be taken advantage of. And I'm sure that IBM couldn't be happier about that.

    3. Re:Linux doesn't need money by uchian · · Score: 2

      Of course they are happy. You got lot's of college kids actually learning how to code on large scale projects that they normally wouldn't have had the chance to see until three or four years down the line. And then they get employed and the IT industry is better for it.

  53. The integral question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you sell something free? The more user-friendly and easy to configure we make it... the harder it is to sell! and then developers vanish cause no one'll pay anymore and only volunteers and companies creating closed-source software remain... And volunteers are great, but so are paid developers...

  54. Software Installation by tgrotvedt · · Score: 2
    One of the big problems with Linux today is how hard some software is to install. RPM's and .deb's are good, but it is almost hard to believe how much software is still distibuted in .tgz format. What's worse is that it has to be compiled in GCC.

    If we want Linux to be as slick as it should be, we can't expect beginners to have to run "make install" and "configure ./". Often these things don't work, and they are just so damn ugly.

    So, to all developers: Please, please, please make all your software available in RPM (or .deb) format! Have tarred, gzipped sources as an extra for geeks by all means, but make package manager files the main format.

    Software installation ticks of new UNIX users more than you realise.

    --
    What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
    1. Re:Software Installation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You have just discovered "Open Source". Have a nice day.

      Seriously, it's impossible for the developers to compile their software to RPM or Deb or anything else, because if they were to do so, they'd have to compile for a gazillion different systems/distros. Remember the same RPM might not work on two different distros, not to mention other systems which do not use RPM/Deb, or even non linux systems.

      It should be the job of your distro to package the stuff

    2. Re:Software Installation by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      The VERY popular packages usually do wind up having debs and rpms.....the ones that don't, maybe a beginner should avoid them. Of course, there are *many* other distros of Linux and other free OS's out there, and for someone who is trying to code for all of them the tgz with portable code is the way they're going to do it, but as you point out they sometimes fail...sounds like for you, and whatever kind of software you like, its often failing....I know for me its about 1 in 20 that need some kind of tweak to get it to work, but if I wasn't a programmer I'd sure be pissed.

    3. Re:Software Installation by tgrotvedt · · Score: 2
      Hmm... it's not me I'm worried about. About a year ago I knew nothing about UNIX systems and was a little scared by compiling problems, but I have no problems now. It's the more end user types that Linux is now attracting that I'm worried about. Slashdotters for the most part aren't the kind of people that need RPMs and such.

      In offices in various places in the world, Linux is becoming widely used. It is being used as a workstation by average non-computer proffesionals. Newbies have asked me many times what they should do to install tgz's. See just because they are end-users, that doesn't mean they don't need niche programs eg. graphics, audio engineering, scientific apps. Now these aren't likely to be packaged, but there is no alernative for these people.

      With all the talk of bringing Linux to the desktop, we are forgetting that many people need more than just office software, a browser and a decent mail client.

      --
      What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
    4. Re:Software Installation by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, I'm not going to say things are perfect, but I'm sitting here with a RH 8.0-based box with apt-get. (Granted, I could use a GUI and make it *really* friendly, but whatever.) apt-get is *painless*. Compare this to the Windows world, where you have lots of different installers, each of which is a little program that may or may not run and takes up your entire screen and has to be located somewhere on the manufacturer's website (or, as is most common in the Windows world, purchased from a store).

      So, let's compare.

      Me:
      1) apt-get install galeon.
      2) Do something else for a while

      Them:
      1) Drive to store
      2) Purchase box
      3) Take box home, stick CD in drive
      4) Wade through non-standard *interactive* installation process.

      As an example, my brother got his hands on an old Windows 98 box today. He asked me to add Divx and CD burning support to the thing. First thing I do is install EZ CD Creator. Installs fine, takes up whole screen, requires a reboot. Upon reboot, starts spewing warnings about applications not being able to launch because of a lack of mfc42.dll exports, as well as another install screen (completing the installation). Okay, turns out he needs mfc42.dll. I go, download that (impossible to find on MS's site even with Google, so I have to get it in a zip file from a third party. No pretty automated installer...drag and drop a dll).

      Then, download Divx installer. System gives error about installer being truncated (it's not). Download zip file containing divx codec for manual installation...we'll see how that goes.

      I'm sorry, but ease of software installation on Windows does not *compare* to ease of software installation on Linux. I'm not even going to discuss how hard it is to keep software up to date on Windows.

    5. Re:Software Installation by macshit · · Score: 2

      One of the big problems with Linux today is how hard some software is to install. RPM's and .deb's are good, but it is almost hard to believe how much software is still distibuted in .tgz format. What's worse is that it has to be compiled in GCC.

      You are very confused.

      Rpms and debs are not an alternative to `.tgz format,' they are a completely different thing. .tgz files are a source format, and usually are fairly portable, whereas rpms and debs are a binary format, and are very system-specific.

      Since a given package can run on a great variety of systems, it's basically impossible for a software author to provide a binary package for most of them -- and even if they tried, they'd probably screw it up fairly often (this is something you often see with rpms `in the wild').

      Morever, it contradicts one of the main goals of free software, which is to give people the source code. Binary packages in a distro are a compromise in the name of pragmatism, but it is not a good one for the package authors themselves to make. The source code should be distributed as far as possible, and only at the last possible step (e.g., before the user downloads from his distro over a slow link) should binary formats be used (if at all).

      So, clearly, `make package manager files the main format' is not only impractical, it's wrong -- source code is the only distribution format that makes sense in the wider scheme of things. Binary packages are a useful addition, if they're done well (e.g., by the distro), but they will always necessarily be an adjunct.

      we can't expect beginners to have to run "make install" and "configure ./". Often these things don't work

      They seem to have about the same failure rate for me as self-installing archives in windows, or random rpms (debian packages on the other hand, work almost 100% of the time, but that's simply because debian is so careful about getting it right). It depends on the package, of course -- a careless author will manage to screw it up, no matter what the distribution format.

      and they are just so damn ugly.

      Matter of opinion I suppose -- I find it quite lovely the way they autodetect all the various quirks of my system and adapt.

      Have tarred, gzipped sources as an extra for geeks by all means, but make package manager files the main format.

      To reiterate: No. This is horrible idea.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    6. Re:Software Installation by mrkrittman · · Score: 1

      Providing software as RPMs or .deb's is only half the issue. Installing a program on Linux should also put an entry in your 'start' menu, if you're using KDE or GNOME, so that you can also find the program after you've installed it.

      This is such an obvious requirement for most normal users, who expect to find a new entry in their 'start' menu or at least a shortcut on the desktop. It should be possible for an installer to detect what distro you are using, and place entries in the relevant KDE or GNOME directories as a matter of course. The default behavour of installers now is to make you hunt around in /usr/bin or wherever and find the exact executable that's required to run the program.

      For most people, this is confusing and makes installing new software a pain.

    7. Re:Software Installation by tgrotvedt · · Score: 2
      I am not confused. I understand the principles of OSS and believe it is very important that developers make their source available, perhaps in a .tgz file.

      What I will say, however, is that the average office/home user should not have to deal with the source and build the app. Now as for the argument about RPMs being platform specific, you are absolutely right. What you haven't thought about though is that the most popular format for a desktop UNIX user is by far Linux on x86. If the developers included an RPM for x86 Linux, that would be enough to keep most people happy,and that's what it's all about.

      Chances are that every *BSD user knows how to build a program, same with the average Solaris user. Linux is different, because it has in the last year or two gone where no open (not OS X) UNIX has gone before: The Desktop. Linux will become more and more used by non-computer people. This is a Good Thing, and resistance won't work, we've been waiting for powerful, open, free desktop UNIX for 5 years.

      The time has come.

      --
      What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
    8. Re:Software Installation by spikedvodka · · Score: 1

      that's right, please make gentoo ebuild files available, so that us who like things to be optimized for our system can just "emerge foo"

      and HEY! it's "./configure" "make" "sudo make install" every geek knows that (and you get better compression with bzip2 anyways, but that's another argument)

      seriously, though, realize that without the source code, nothing happens, I Believe that the tared,[b|g]ziped source code should always be the primary format for any open source project (not to be confused with free software), but that package manager formats should also be available.

      Honestly, I've only found one package manager that I've liked, namely the gentoo portage system, though I will confess I haven't tried Debian's apt-get system. but Redhat's RPM system IMHO blows chunks, trying to upgrade a package can be a major pain, escpecially if the old dependancies supply different than expected files, From what I've seen the ./configure route sorts that out, and gentoo's system does that automatically.

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    9. Re:Software Installation by macshit · · Score: 2
      What I will say, however, is that the average office/home user should not have to deal with the source and build the app.

      There are different ways to deal with this; for instance:
      1. Just let the distro do it, since you know they'll probably do it right (this works well with debian, because they've got the manpower to package just about everything).
      2. Make a system that can take the `pain' (such as it is) out of compiling installing the source, e.g. just automatically doing `configure' with the right args, and then `make; make install'. Sure this would only work with packages that follow some sort of standard for configuration and installation, but hey getting developers to do that shouldn't be any harder than getting them to provide standard binary packages, and it's far more powerful.

      My main objection to your post was saying that binary packages should become the `main' distribution format -- that's simply wrongheaded.

      Now as for the argument about RPMs being platform specific, you are absolutely right. What you haven't thought about though is that the most popular format for a desktop UNIX user is by far Linux on x86. If the developers included an RPM for x86 Linux, that would be enough to keep most people happy,and that's what it's all about.

      For simple packages, perhaps; for anything more complex, the differences between packages become a problem, and such `standard' binary packages really end up being `redhat x.y' binary packages.

      Hopefully the LSB (Linux Standard Base) will solve this problem in the future.
      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    10. Re:Software Installation by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Okay, I'm not going to say things are perfect, but I'm sitting here with a RH 8.0-based box with apt-get.

      You just described the ideal scenario, one that unfortunately doesn't happen very often. In particular, the number of RPMs available via apt4rpm on RH8 is incredibly small. When apt works, it works great, hence the fact that we're stealing from it liberally in autopackage. Usually though, it doesn't work, unless you use Debian, and then the inertia that attempting to package nearly every piece of software on the planet implies (gentoo are having problems with this too) means packages are often out of date.

      The Windows scenario as described is also sort of unusual, although as Windows software installation was grown rather than designed yes, it too is far from perfect.

      What's needed is for developers to be able to produce portable binary packages, and then have a distributed and decentralised DNS style network to replace apt. The interface is still the same: "package install galeon" and wait, but unlike apt it scales.

      Of course, that makes it sound easy. It isn't. For instance, the GNU ld.so (dynamic linker) contains design, ah, issues which make producing portable binaries quite hard (to do with link trees). We're figuring out what to do about that now, talking to libc-alpha, distros etc. We may (worst case scenario) end up having to distribute our own linker, luckily ELF allows for plug and play linkers.

      Then you've got the myriad differences between distros. Every distro except debian uses the FSF version of install-info. Debian based distros use their own, slightly incompatable version. File locations differ and most packages built with automake are not relocatable. We have solutions for those things too.

      OK, end rant. It's going to be a long haul, but believe me, we will end up with the most kickass software management system in the world. It'll be like apt, except it works more often (hopefully one day, always works), and it'll look good too. Will we make v1.0 in 2003? Hmmm, maybe so, maybe no. We'll have to wait and see. If not 2003 then definately 2004.

    11. Re:Software Installation by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      You just described the ideal scenario, one that unfortunately doesn't happen very often. In particular, the number of RPMs available via apt4rpm on RH8 is incredibly small.

      I'm also using the freshrpm and Macromedia apt repositories, but yes, it was a good situation. Still, it really isn't all that rare. I use a pretty oddball collection of programs, but I think that every process running at the moment is from an apt-available package.

      The Windows scenario as described is also sort of unusual, although as Windows software installation was grown rather than designed yes, it too is far from perfect.

      The Windows approach is still non-optimal. I've had plenty of times that uninstallers fail, or installers fail but don't give a useful message.

      What's needed is for developers to be able to produce portable binary packages, and then have a distributed and decentralised DNS style network to replace apt. The interface is still the same: "package install galeon" and wait, but unlike apt it scales.

      I'd like to see distro folks get together and come up with one *common* meta-spec-file format that can contain all the metainformation that might need to be in a package. Then you can build any sort of packages from it. RPM's spec is a damn ugly, PITA-to-write, not-particularly-heavily-structured format, so it doesn't cut it.

      For instance, the GNU ld.so (dynamic linker) contains design, ah, issues which make producing portable binaries quite hard (to do with link trees).

      Yup. Why, if I didn't know better, I'd be almost willing to say that Stallman designed things to be inconvenient for non-source distributed software. ;-)

      [clip bit about good package management]

      It'd be nice to support (if not in the package manager itself, in a front end to it) automatic downloading a la emerge or apt-get that's aware of mirrors. It'd be nice to use gpg for *everything* (including downloading new mirror lists), and do so transparently to the user. It'd be nice to have the package manager have an absolutely minimal set of requirements (python and perl are right out). It'd be nice to have the package manager have the ability to *configure* software...to understand configure options. That would be decidedly cool. It'd be nice for the package manager to run as non-root and to allow finding "differences" between two system states -- RH might define "RH 8 is set of packages foo with these specified SHAsums". It'd be nice to have the system be easy for packagers to use. It'd nice fo rthe package manager to have decent backward compatibility (unlike every *other* GNU tool that starts with "auto" :-( ) It'd be nice for the package manager to support "user overrides", where the user *knows* something is fulfilled and doesn't want to hear about it again (for example, if he's using a non-packaged kernel).

      BTW, if you wrote the blurb on package management on autopackage.org, that's one of the best discussions of package management and issues with current systems I've ever read.

    12. Re:Software Installation by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      I'd like to see distro folks get together and come up with one *common* meta-spec-file format that can contain all the metainformation that might need to be in a package. Then you can build any sort of packages from it. RPM's spec is a damn ugly, PITA-to-write, not-particularly-heavily-structured format, so it doesn't cut it.

      Yeah, I did consider this. Unfortunately, they differ in very core ways - for instance package naming. Renaming all the redhat/debian packages to be the same would cause chaos - and whos name is better? You still have the limitations of RPM to deal with of course.

      Yup. Why, if I didn't know better, I'd be almost willing to say that Stallman designed things to be inconvenient for non-source distributed software. ;-)

      LOL! I have thought exactly the same thing. Well, in this case Stallman didn't write the part of glibc that causes problems, but still.... I wonder :)

      It'd be nice to support (if not in the package manager itself, in a front end to it) automatic downloading a la emerge or apt-get that's aware of mirrors

      Check

      It'd be nice to use gpg for *everything* (including downloading new mirror lists), and do so transparently to the user.

      We're still debating this. It implies a central authority with absolute control and infallibility for one. Maybe so, maybe no. We're not at the stage where it could be implemented anyway.

      It'd be nice to have the package manager have an absolutely minimal set of requirements (python and perl are right out).

      Just bash. Check

      It'd be nice to have the package manager have the ability to *configure* software...to understand configure options. That would be decidedly cool.

      Well, at the moment we build binary .packages from the source tree directly, but I want to introduce a .src.package stage first that can then be automatically converted to binary packages for different architectures. Understanding configure options might become a part of that.

      It'd be nice for the package manager to run as non-root

      Check (though for security reasons you still need to set autopackage up the first time as root). After that you can install packages to your home dir without root access.

      and to allow finding "differences" between two system states -- RH might define "RH 8 is set of packages foo with these specified SHAsums".

      That's something for RPM to deal with. We don't replace it, just compliment it.

      It'd nice fo rthe package manager to have decent backward compatibility (unlike every *other* GNU tool that starts with "auto" :-( )

      Well, once we reach 1.0 the goal is to maintain interface compatability for as long as possible. We have mechanisms in place to support that already, but we're a long way from 1.0. We'll only release it when we're sure it's solid. But we can't predict the future.....

      It'd be nice for the package manager to support "user overrides", where the user *knows* something is fulfilled and doesn't want to hear about it again (for example, if he's using a non-packaged kernel).

      Yeah, well we check the system directly (not using the rpm database) so in theory you should never need to override it's decisions because it'll always pick up the actual state of the system. Of course, that assumes packagers are infallible :)

      BTW, if you wrote the blurb on package management on autopackage.org, that's one of the best discussions of package management and issues with current systems I've ever read.

      Yes I did, thanks.

    13. Re:Software Installation by scrytch · · Score: 2

      2. Make a system that can take the `pain' (such as it is) out of compiling installing the source, e.g. just automatically doing `configure' with the right args, and then `make; make install'. Sure this would only work with packages that follow some sort of standard for configuration and installation, but hey getting developers to do that shouldn't be any harder than getting them to provide standard binary packages, and it's far more powerful.

      It's called FreeBSD. And it runs linux binaries flawlessly as well.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    14. Re:Software Installation by patter · · Score: 1

      warnings about applications not being able to launch because of a lack of mfc42.dll exports

      Hmm, the MFC .dll is part of windows. If the OS is hosed or the software you just installed screwed up the OS, it's a sort of atypical (common maybe) situation.

      *nix counter part, another programmer I work with decided to updated his glibc, then build our server component, and gave it to me to update a server. Lo and behold, atoi (no that's not right anyway, some relatively standard library call) didn't exist. It appears someone decided to move it from where it was in the glibc package that shipped on RedHat 7.3.

      Changes to libraries or replacements by crappy installers (if they need a different older version of mfc42 they're screwing something up) happen on both Linux and Windows, thanks.

      Blame shitty QA at Adaptec maybe, not the operating systems in question.

      --
      -- If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. -- Harry F. Banks
    15. Re:Software Installation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hear that. I've been using a computer mostly every day for six years now, which I feel puts me beyond a typical "computer literate" user (although I'm sure most of you guys have me beat.) I would have converted to Linux a few years ago, but reading the software installation instructions for software ported to Linux makes me cringe. In 2003, nobody should have to go through that much work just to get something that's already been downloaded put into a usable form.

      I'm sure I could get the hang of it and learn to install things with no problem. My point is that I shouldn't be expected to. If a developer wants me to use his/her software, then I ask that they not make it such a burden. Yeah yeah, I realize that I sound whiny and it may seem like I want everything served to me on a silver platter. That isn't fully the case, and if it were I'd be reflecting the sentiments of 90% of computer users. The audience will grow once access is made simple. We're waiting.

      -isaac
      falsified@gmx.net

    16. Re:Software Installation by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Hmm, the MFC .dll is part of windows.

      No, the system wasn't hosed -- MFC42.dll certainly did not always ship with Windows, though it happens to be part of XP. XP has its own requirements. (Does it ship with a JVM? How about SDL? DivX libraries? I can definitely get missing dependencies. The Windows approach is "have a developer manually determine a minimum OS to support, bundle everything we think of and can get a license for, and hope that the OS bundles everything else we need, except for DirectX, which we can redistribute").

      *nix counter part, another programmer I work with decided to updated his glibc, then build our server component, and gave it to me to update a server. Lo and behold, atoi (no that's not right anyway, some relatively standard library call) didn't exist. It appears someone decided to move it from where it was in the glibc package that shipped on RedHat 7.3.

      Sure, but I'm not talking about a bunch of developers that are modifying individual libraries and not using the installer system. I'm talking about for-end-user packaged software having issues at install time. Heck, I've done similar things while doing Windows development ("okay, I need a modified version of this library to get things working"), but that's sort of expected when you're working on that level.

      (if they need a different older version of mfc42 they're screwing something up)

      No, it just needed mfc42. Though I do remember two apps that required different version of a runtime once...it was six or so years ago, when I was using NT 4.0, though, so I don't remember the names of the two apps.

      Changes to libraries or replacements by crappy installers...happen on both Linux and Windows, thanks.

      Not if you're using an actual package management system, they don't. Sure, I can manually run in with root/Administrator privs and deliberately screw up libraries. I wasn't going that far. My point is that InstallShield has led to problems for me, whereas simply apt-getting RPMs has not.

      Blame shitty QA at Adaptec maybe, not the operating systems in question.

      Well, that too, but I still think that you should have a package management system that handles dependencies (*without* a developer remembering to do this and manually putting in effort, a la InstallShield).

  55. what do you want tose other F keys for? by child_of_mercy · · Score: 0

    um?

    hello?

    I've never hit 6 but I've frequently had stuff cooking in 3 or 4 terminals (+ X)

    the real estate of the full screen in bash is nice to have for real jobs.

    We got a Sun box in a while ago and nearly choked when we realised it forced us to do everything through X.

    but more importantly, the terminals are there if you need them, and if you never want to hit Alt-F2 then don't

    that way we all win eh?

    --
    'There is a Light that never goes out.'
    1. Re:what do you want tose other F keys for? by realmolo · · Score: 1

      No, dumbass, he meant that seven different terminal *programs* are installed.

      You're talking about having multiple terminal windows open.

      Reading Is Fundamental

    2. Re:what do you want tose other F keys for? by ag3n7 · · Score: 1

      Dude, he meant 7 different terminal programs? Why, as a user, do I care about choosing between aterm, eterm, xterm, powerterm, ?term...

      Just give me the best one, or the default one for a given desktop environment

    3. Re:what do you want tose other F keys for? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      What about your Sun box forces you to do everything through X? I have a SS10 that runs Solaris, and it does a lot without needing to use X. When I do want to run X on it I don't use the Sun Desktop (a bad idea on a machine as old as a SS10), I use FVWM2 for a Window Manager and all the regular stuff I always used back when I ran Linux.

    4. Re:what do you want tose other F keys for? by child_of_mercy · · Score: 2

      i imagine we could rip the sun desktop out but they still service the machine.

      its on solaris 8.2

      what are you running?

      --
      'There is a Light that never goes out.'
  56. Who is trolling whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent trolling technique!

    I notice that you've managed to claim that no one's making any money from Linux, and complain that a company that does is swallowing it up in the same post.

    That short paragraph about Apache and MySQL is perfect for putting a bit of space between the two conflicting claims.

    And boldly using the +1 bonus, too. Keep up the good work!

  57. Re:size issues by vistic · · Score: 1
    Small is Beautiful.


    Well... I was with you until that point.
  58. Re:This year: good, next year: ? by The_Mutato · · Score: 1

    Free Software is not necessarily free as in "free beer", but free as in "free speech"! You could easily find that out anywhere. I don't mind buying open source/free software if it is good or has something innovative (3d GUI's anyone? Well???).
    That's my $0.02

  59. Now for the bad news re: GNU/Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though not entirely related to the state of GNU or the Linux kernel:

    Compaq/HP entirely drop Digital Alpha beyond EV7.

    What does this mean?

    There will be only one mainstream 64-bit platform from Chipzil- ...err, Intel.

    It's clear from the progress within the GCC project that Alpha has dropped from being a second-rate consideration to a totally-ignored bastard stepchild.

    For those of us who invested heavily in Alpha hoping for better support in the Free Software world, 2002 has been a very bitter pill.

    Thanks Carly Fiorina (HP) and Michael Capellas (formerly Compaq, now at WorldCom of all places)!

    ~AC

  60. I think, perhaps, you misunderstand by kfg · · Score: 1

    Mandrake installs seven different X-windows terminal emulation programs.

    xterm, eterm, konsole, etc.

    I'm not speaking about the number of virtual terminals the default install supports.

    KFG

  61. Apples and Oranges by g4dget · · Score: 2
    For your information both of the most popular linux desktop have strong commercial ties. [...] It just isn't open-source versus commercial anymore. People need to get out of this mindset. Ximian puts a lot of money into GNOME, and GNOME would not have been as far along as it had without their full time programmers.

    Yes, Gnome is sponsored commercially, as are many other projects. There is nothing wrong with commercial sponsorship.

    There is a big difference, however: Troll Tech has a dual licensing model, and they claim that the ability to license their software commercially is necessary to finance their open source efforts. In contrast, when other companies sponsor open source efforts, the sponsors do not retain any special rights to the sponsored software.

    That has numerous implications. For example, contributing to Qt and Gtk+ has very different implications and beneficiaries.

    And with their dual licensing model, Troll Tech's motivations are different as well. On the Zaurus, if you want to develop commercial apps, you have no choice but to pay them; that is a very strong incentive for them to push Qt/Embedded over Qt/X11. If Troll Tech were sponsoring Qt like IBM is sponsoring the Linux kernel, they would have no special economic incentive to prefer Qt/Embedded over Qt/X11--their choice would be driven only by technical considerations. Those are the dangers of a Troll Tech-like model.

    "If that is true, I think it really calls into question the entire open source effort." No it doesn't. Not in any way, shape or form. Open source and commercial can co-exist fine.

    I think they can co-exist, like IBM and Linux do. Troll Tech is a different model, and I think it's dangerous. Sun, in fact, is trying to do something similar with Java, and I think it suffers from similar problems.

    1. Re:Apples and Oranges by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 2
      There is a big difference, however: Troll Tech has a dual licensing model, and they claim that the ability to license their software commercially is necessary to finance their open source efforts. In contrast, when other companies sponsor open source efforts, the sponsors do not retain any special rights to the sponsored software.

      That is true. And I agree with you on the Sun point as well. Both Sun and TrollTech hold special rights to the software, and Ximian doesn't.

      The thing is all those companies are asking What is the sweet spot? How can I make money and still be open source?. I don't think anyone has perfected this yet, so the dual license is just another attempt at profitability using open source. You can't blame TrollTech for trying either.

      Ximian tries to recoup it's cost by (i) services such as red carpet (ii) contracts from HP and Sun ( or at least they use to ) (iii) selling proprietary software ( exchange connector ) (vi) VC money ( probably ). They are in no way out of the woods yet. Although I wish them good luck.

      IBM is an entirely different animal. With IBM's size, they can easily put entire teams on linux and write that off as expenses on their exteremly lucrative consulting division's budget. Consultant groups do very well with open source, but very few give back. Most of the time the software producers, be it the sole programmer in his spare time or the open source company is left holding the bill for development. And yes, there is a bill involved, and it gets larger every year as software gets more complex.

      My point is to ask "what is fair"? If someone is going to make money on trolltechs investment, should trolltech get something out of it? How is trolltech to continue to produce open source code if they do not have a reliable revenue stream?

      --
      Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
    2. Re:Apples and Oranges by g4dget · · Score: 2
      The thing is all those companies are asking What is the sweet spot? How can I make money and still be open source?. I don't think anyone has perfected this yet, so the dual license is just another attempt at profitability using open source. You can't blame TrollTech for trying either.

      No, I don't blame them. However, you can't blame me either for arguing that their license and policies are detrimental to the future of GUIs on Linux desktops and Linux handhelds. You may disagree, and you may have good arguments to counter mine, but it's something that should be open to debate.

      My point is to ask "what is fair"? If someone is going to make money on trolltechs investment, should trolltech get something out of it? How is trolltech to continue to produce open source code if they do not have a reliable revenue stream?

      I don't think "fairness" is the right criterion. It's a free market, and to keep it efficient, I should choose what's in my long-term interest.

      There are areas where I think Troll Tech's business model (dual licensing) is harmless or beneficial to open source. But when it comes to GUIs, I don't think success for Troll Tech's business model for Qt is in the long term interest of Linux users.

      One is that Qt doesn't stand a chance as being selected as the default toolkit by companies like IBM or Sun--those companies don't want to be tied to some small vendor for the future of commercial applications on their platforms; only a toolkit that allows free commercial usage and is open source, like a toolkit with an LGPL, BSD, or similar license, will do for them. And that's what we are already seeing.

      Another reason is that Troll Tech's commercial interests in the toolkit call their technical choices into question. Is Qt/Embedded really the best technical solution or is it merely a convenient way of ensuring that all commercial apps for the Sharp have to pay Troll Tech. To what degree is failure of Qt/KDE to interoperate with non-Qt/KDE desktops a technical issue or a business strategy issue? Dual licensing calls everything into question.

      If Qt were the only game in town, we might have to live with this. But Gtk+, wxWindows, FLTK, and while you can quibble whether they are "as good", other systems are viable alternatives. So, I just don't see much need for open source efforts to have this kind of arrangement with Troll Tech. Or, if you want to look at it differently, no, Troll Tech doesn't "deserve" to be paid for Qt because they are much more expensive than other comparable toolkits--which are free. The market is a harsh mistress.

      (I might point out that Troll Tech, through the prominence it gained through their arrangement with KDE, pretty much single-handedly killed off a number of other commercial cross-platform toolkits, toolkits which arguably were better supported and more complete. Was that "fair"? I don't know, and that's why I think it's not the right question to ask.)

  62. Re:PDA Good || Server Bad by pi_rules · · Score: 2

    In other light I know of schools and many other instutions switching to MS bassed mail systems due to ease of maintence

    Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahah! Hah!

    They'll be back once Exchange hoses up all their data. They will be back.

  63. Linux camp is still clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Has Linux made vast strides in the last year (or even the last several years)? Absolutely--only a complete moron would argue otherwise. Is Linux any closer to being a serious competitor on the mainstream desktop? No.

    It's this simple: Mainstreamers using Windows have a list of things they insist they be able to do on their computer. This list includes everything from using certain hardware bought at their local OfficeMax to running specific programs. Even though they don't think about it in such terms, the list also includes using as much of their current, hard-won knowledge about computers as possible.

    Trying to convert one of these entrenched Windows users to Linux is like trying to roll a big boulder up a hill. And that's true even in those (very frequent) cases when the person actually hates Windows and bitches all the time about how unstable it is. Unless they can convert to Linux and do everything they want to and as close to exactly the way they want to as possible, and with minimal conversion hassle, then Linux isn't even close to being a desktop competitor.

    Honestly, if a diehard Windows user tried to convince you to dump Linux and convert to Windows, you'd have many of the same objections--it won't let you do what you want the way you want to, the conversion is a huge pain in the ass, etc.

    Until the Linux programmers figure out how to radically lower that conversion cost, Bill Gates will continue singing all the way to the bank.

    1. Re:Linux camp is still clueless by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least as far as the corporate desktop, people will use whatever the company they work for *tells* them to use..........and for that reason, and that reason alone, Linux can beome a serious desktop competitor without having to lower any conversion cost.....the (l)users will be TOLD to convert.

      Microsoft can have the home game/personal finance/entertainment machine market...because if they only have that, they are going out of business because the price of a home PC is lowering to the point the "Microsoft Tax" is too much!

    2. Re:Linux camp is still clueless by Derek+S · · Score: 1

      So we're counting on sysadmins to force their users into the conversion even when the value proposition isn't there? I want to see Linux succeed on the desktop as much as anyone, but I'm not about to screw over my employer like that.

      In my opinion, there is a small subset of corporate desktop environments where Linux would be a good idea right now. But I think it's actually being held back by memory of the big Linux hype (from both journalists and zealots) a couple of years back. Lots of people gave it a shot back then and decided it wasn't good enough for them. Now, even though things have improved, they may not be giving it a fair shot.

    3. Re:Linux camp is still clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the (l)users will be TOLD to convert Oh way to go man! Great attitude! These '(l)users' are the people who keep businesses running so they can pay your salary, and keep your sad, fat, pimply ass off the streets. I sense you have some serious self-esteem issues here! You want people (lusers) to be TOLD that they should agree with your view of the world - no arguments! No Sir! Get some help you useless moron.

    4. Re:Linux camp is still clueless by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      No, it is not up to sysadmins or IT to make that choice, and it will not be me who forces anyone to use it. I am talking about more & more OWNERS & EXECUTIVES of companies making a choice not to use Microsoft's products (and they are the ones who have the RIGHT to do so), and their employees will use what system they are told to use. In a business setting the phrases "Linux is about freedom and choice" have absolutely no relevance whatever. A company exists to make money, not to give its employees the OS they would like.

    5. Re:Linux camp is still clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, a few of those "lusers" have titles like VP and CEO and some of them even listen to their employees.

      Your general point is correct, despite the harsh tone. But you grossly underestimate the corporate politics involved in any form of conversion project.

      Linux can beome a serious desktop competitor without having to lower any conversion cost

      Here's where you go off the rails. Most business can not right now cost-justify Linux on the desktop (and lots of them have looked into it). The ONLY way you can get more desktop customers is to lower the conversion costs. Otherwise no sane management is going to buy the plan.

    6. Re:Linux camp is still clueless by Derek+S · · Score: 1

      Okay, sorry about misreading your original comment. I suppose we're largely in agreement, except that I would point out that employers do have to consider the preferences of their employees to some degree. If using Linux is going to annoy users so much that it hurts their productivity (as would be the case for most business environments right now), then the conversion is not economically feasible. There should be, however, a point in the forseeable future where users *think* they won't be able to work with Linux but will actually accept it once they are pushed into it by management.

    7. Re:Linux camp is still clueless by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      The "cost" mentioned in original post was effort by end users to learn, not dollar cost. And "conversion" meant user switching, not the effort of translating data files, training, etc. Certainly monetary cost, data conversion, & new procedures need to be justified. I know of companies that are doing desktop change to Linux...they've done the justifications and are doing it. The C?0's are the ones driving it, and that's the only way it will happen in most traditional (non-computer software/hardware/serverices) corporations

      I think perceived "harsh tone" mostly came from my use of "(l)user", which is only humorous way of referring to end user...I've been the end (l)user & (ab)user myself on systems adminned by others for many years. Also, when I do turbotax and photo work on my windows 98se box and it seizes up I am (l)user.

    8. Re:Linux camp is still clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You like Linux. You like the way it works, you find alternatives inferior in various ways, you know it's the best tool for the job. You are a genius.

      Writers, artists, drafters, designers, composers, editors of all kinds, and other useless intellectual property vermin like the proprietary software they're using. They like the way it works, they find alternatives inferior in various ways, they know what's the best tool for their jobs. They are FUCKING IDIOTS.

      Silly ignorant business types, who are obviously cretinous because they wear uncomfortable clothes and shined shoes, will throw their production departments into non-productive Stone Age chaos because it saves them a squirt of piss on the bottom line, on the orders of a low-level propeller-head grunt who can be replaced in less than a day by someone more qualified who's willing to work cheaper.

      Does that pretty much sum up your argument?

    9. Re:Linux camp is still clueless by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      What I was *saying* is that more & more people will *have* to use Linux on the desktop, and not by their choice. And more & more "silly ignorant business types" as you put it are the ones who are/will push it. Maybe not the happiest situation, but the real live work world is like that. I didn't say it was good, just that it is happening

      And I like OpenBSD much more than I like Linux.

      Also, people may not know what is the *best* tool for their job if they haven't tried alternatives. The designers and drafters who worked for me found Pro/E on an UltraSparc with Solaris to be much better for the work they needed to do than running it on NT / Wintel, once they had a chance to try it. And people running MASS-11 word processing on a VAX found they liked the Mac IIci and WYSIWYG word processors much better, once they had a chance to try it, and so I had to requisition a couple dozen of those.

  64. Re:PDA Good || Server Bad by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

    Now you're sounding like the vengeful maintenance engineers from Central Services in the movie Brazil.

    Is that some sort of a sysadmin thing?

  65. Simple by LucidityZero · · Score: 1

    Installing a system should be an additive process, not like hacking away at a mighty oak with a chainsaw to release the inner OS. Very simple... Gentoo, sir/ma'am.

    --
    Sig.i>
  66. Re:the brand gnu cooperation by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    Moderators, please moderate the parent down. This is (at least) the third time that friendly_fire (whose Joyce-esque style -- or lack thereof -- is instantly recognisable to anyone who's spent time on the NYT Forums in the last two years) has posted this today.

    friendly, plase grow a pair and create an account so I can add you to my Foes list.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  67. Re:This year: good, next year: ? by jbrandon · · Score: 1

    Let me clarify - If it does happen, and is so obvious that geeks like us have to admit it, it will be so long from now that /. will have run it's course.

    It may never happen.

  68. *You* *have* *no* *idea* by mtngrown · · Score: 1


    how easy it is these days to install software from source, compared to the old days where everyone wrote their own, usually broken Makefiles, to build and install into wacko locations. ./configure; make; make install is a *dream* compared to 10 years ago. And really, compared to 10 years ago, watching configure do its thing is beautiful... you think rpm dependency is hell... try having header/library dependency.

    Also, rmp/deb formats are often not as convenient as source, especially for developing or maintaining software.

    Finally, there is no reason not to believe that building software will get easier and easier. Easy enough that a moderately competent user should be able to build from source.

  69. What's in a name? On Slashdot, too much. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Funny

    True.

    There is some argument that it's a bit burdensome to say exactly what you mean anymore when specifying a group of OSes on Slashdot, though.

    Let me give an example. I might say "Unix had a good year with mplayer", except someone would be sure to pop up and "Linux isn't Unix...it's a Unix-like OS". Okay, that we can deal with. Then we run the dilemma of whether "Unix-like OSes had a good year with mplayer" means "all operating systems that are like Unix, but are not, in fact, Unix", or whether it means "all operating systems that are or are not Unix, as long as they resemble Unix". You could say "Linux had a good year with GNOME 2", but then you get nailed by a FreeBSD guy that says that GNOME 2 works *fine* on FreeBSD as well, and another Stallmanite or Debianite who says that what you *really* mean to say is "GNU/Linux", not "Linux", which refers only to a kernel. "Red Hat Linux" would refer to a whole operating system, but only one distribution of such. Now, one must be sure not to say only "Unix and GNU/Linux have excellent text processing tools", as someone will be sure to mention that GNU/Hurd can handle those same tools as well, and is being shortchanged in your original comment. One could say that "Sun's make is only supported under Solaris" -- is that in fact true, or is it also supported under SunOS?

    At this point, we may think we see a clever loophole. "Free operating systems achieved an enormous boom in the last year." However, that would be sure to get Stallmanites pointing out that you do not mean "Free", since BSD is not Free (or perhaps it is -- even with an almost 24/7 tech habit I can't keep up with what the FSF believes). Instead, perhaps you mean "free". Also, Red Hat may or may not be Free, based on their previous inclusion of Netscape Navigator. But you aren't talking about "free" operating systems -- that would include BeOS and Apple's System 6.0.8. You might change to "open source", whereupon you are informed that several companies consider their operating systems to be "open source" but only to some people or under some restrictions. Instead, you must mean "Open Source" operating systems. Well, even assuming you're familiar with ESR's exact rhetoric and can tell what falls under the "Open Source" moniker, at this point you're probably a bit bewildered.

    I've reached the point where I just transpose the proper term, the one someone meant, whenever I see "Linux" or "Unix" or "open source operating systems" on Slashdot. It just isn't worth trying to be perfectly accurate, since a term to properly define the set you're talking about is probably at least two sentences long. :-)

  70. Re:This year: good, next year: ? by kwalker · · Score: 1

    I agree with your statements, but I don't see how you can use them to attack RedHat. I mean companies like Xandros, Lindows, and hell even SuSE include non-free software with their distributions, but RedHat has made a long-standing commitment (Since RH6 I believe) to only include FREE (As in speech) software with their distribution. That's why they don't distribute the nVidia drivers that are so popular, or WineX, or MP3 decoders anymore.

    --
    Improvise, adapt, and overcome.
  71. Yes it was good by chadruva · · Score: 1

    From the technical point it was good, many Open Source projects advanced very well this 2002. As well, Linux distros has become more newb frendly. But still, is se how great projects like KDE, GNOME and others are becoming more feature rich and more fat. I have Mandrake 8.2 and most software performs pretty well on my 200mhz Laptop with 64 of RAM, in other hand, i buyed the new Mandrake 9.0, with new KDE 3.0.3 and Gnome 2, new Control Center, and better Graphic Administration tools, but everything runs really slow!!, GTK2 is really slow now!!, is that really good to the GNU/Linux?, are key projects getting bigger and slower all the time? I remember RedHat 5.2, performed better then everything i ever see with just 24mb of RAM in use.

    --
    C-x C-c
  72. This whole thing reminds me of... by NateTech · · Score: 1

    ... this one time, at Band Camp...

    --
    +++OK ATH
  73. Re:PDA Good || Server Bad by raju1kabir · · Score: 2
    Walmart certainly helped supporting Lindows, which i hope succedes as a desktop replacement.

    A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a salesperson in a Walmart-like store in a developing country which shall remain nameless. They were selling no-name machines with Linux installed; had 'em right up in the prime space at the front of the electronics area. About half the price of the cheapest XP machine (maybe US$300 including small CRT monitor).

    He said that as far as he knew, most people just bought them to save money and then illegally installed W2K or XP over top. This seems plausible to me, as Linux awareness in said country was not high.

    So maybe those Lindows sales can't all go in the Linux column.

    --
    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  74. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  75. Linux: NEVER Ready for Prime Time on the Desktop by Dr.+Mu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Linux continues its endless, asymptotic approach to desktop nirvana. Will it ever get close enough? I doubt it. The main problem for Linux's wide acceptance is a congenital failure of the free software model, namely, that there is too much ego and not enough subservience to a standard. I have a Redhat/Gnome box. I daily suffer at least six different graphical file selection paradigms of various capabilities and presentations. One lets me scroll with the mouse wheel; another doesn't. One lists files in strict ASCII order; another ignores capitalization when sorting by name. And none approaches the ease and uniformity of the Windows standard. Don't get me wrong: I think Windows is the OS from hell, reliability-wise. But at least Microsoft has the luxury of dictating to their programmers that they SHALL adhere to a common look and feel. That never can and never will happen with Linux -- or any product of a developemnt model that subjugates responsibility to freedom.

    The second big problem Linux faces is that its written by the OS-infatuated for the OS-infatuated. It very clearly lacks the "common touch". All I want is an OS that does what it's supposed to, then stays the hell out of my way. With Linux, I'm constantly tripping over piss-ant details and indiosyncratic quirks. The control is nice, and so is the ultimate reliability. But at what price? There's a line in one of the many HOW-TOs I've waded through that goes something like this:

    If you don't understand this, contact your sysadmin. If you are the sysadmin, God help you.
    God help us all!
  76. Re:Linux: NEVER Ready for Prime Time on the Deskto by m1chael · · Score: 2, Insightful

    its ready. its just not ready for everybody.

    --
    I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  77. X is not slow, apps are by Turmio · · Score: 3, Insightful
    For 4793th time, please stop calling X slow.

    It takes the time to initialize graphics mode (like 0.1 secs to 2 secs, depends on your graphics device but it's the same for all graphical systems using the device, Windows included) plus a few milliseconds overhead even with old machines to get X up and running. Hardly slow for me, but perhaps you've got something better to offer.

    What you're calling SLOW is the desktop environment running on top of X, GNOME or KDE or something. And I certainly can't argue with you that there wouldn't be lots of room for improvements here. But it's not fault of X, it's the bloat in applications.

    So one thing that could improve all of Linux in terms of speed would be removal of GNOME and/or KDE, X is irrelevant here. Oh, wait a second. Actually that sentence doesn't make sense at all, you can't remove X or GNOME or KDE from Linux since it's not there. Linux is just the kernel. Let's try once more. One thing that could improve all of Linux distribution somedist in terms of speed would be removal of GNOME and/or KDE. But then again, I wouldn't use mydist if they took my GNOME desktop away.

  78. Soft. Install -- improved but not perfect by cervo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Software installation can be a nightmare.

    ./configure and make install are simple and beautiful when they work, however lately when I have upgraded some core system software as well as installed some new projects I run into some problems.

    The project depends on other libraries which either
    A) Are not mentioned in the software documentation at all, so need to look at messages and do some searches to find the libraries.
    B) Are linked to on the web page but the link is bad so need to search them randomly, then most of the links from the search engine are bad, but eventually get to the right page.
    C) And the worst is when there is an entire tree of dependencies, and most of them have to be installed in a specific order. Installing one package results in a few hours of compiling all the required libraries in the specified orders.
    D) some of the libraries you need to install/upgrade are installed to directories other than the program searches. The libraries are in the path, but the program has hardcoded into it /usr/lib/bleh.so. Or you upgrade the library and the upgrade is installed to /usr/local/lib but the older version is in /usr/lib or /lib.
    Software installation can be a nightmare. It's just the way it is. In windows more often then not, when a program needs a library, the library is bundled with the program and installed by the installation program. Errors like required DLL's missing are less and less. This is because many of the windows programming environments include package programs to put all the required dll's with the software and to install them if they are not there. Many games that use additional programs(ie DirectX or what nto) will offer to install it if it is not already there. Whereas with Linux I must go cruising the web, downloading the libs I need, compiling them, then the software.

    However, distributing the source code is a better option than the binaries in most cases, because of the multitude of systems linux works on. Assuming the program is written without machine dependent parts, if a binary is made for a different system than yours, you have to emulate it and it is much slower than if it was made in your native format. Furthermore code optimized for a 386 does not work as well on a Pentium IV as code optimized for a Pentium IV in many cases. Additionally in the past I used some software in binaries, and many libraries had newer versions made without regard to backwards compatibility, so that because my distribution was newer my old binaries stopped working. This hasn't happened for a long time, probably because libraries are mostly backwards compatible, but still there are no guarantees, so compiling the source and relinking libraries is the best option.

    So to sum things up, if you are whining because you can't ./configure and make install with it working, you're an IDIOT. But this method is not perfect and the errors mentioned above do occur. Distributing binaries, NOT the best solution to the installation problems. The supported systems by linux are just too different. A binary compiled for your system is more efficient, additionally linkage problems can come into play with pre-compiled binaries. But with binaries, the real convenience in not providing them is for the poor developers. Maybe they do their code on a PowerPC or something, why should they have to go through the trouble of cross compiling for you. I will say one thing though, automake has certainly improved tremendously. A few years ago there were many things it didn't detect and it was necessary to go into the source code and make modifications to get MANY programs to work. Most of my installations once I have the correct libraries work perfectly.

    A vision for the future:
    Source code comes with a ./configure script which will check your system as it does now. Library not found comes up, you are presented with a set of information about the missing option required to get the program to function, and a list of options(Exit setup and install it yourself, Attempt to auto download and install the library online, Adjust path to the library, etc.). This way there is no web searching for the library, you will see the URL where you can get it in the info. Furthermore it could download and install it right away. If that library has depenencies they could be installed. This method would be extremely convenient, even more so than windows. And it shouldn't be too hard, except that authors of software would have to keep track of where they got the libs from and make sure their URLS are still valid. Additionally the test would give detailed information, not only on the missing package but why the test failed. Hacking an auto generated configure script is NOT FUN.

    But, even without these changes installation the way it is, is not too hard to learn. For some library heavy software, it can be a pain, but hang in there and you'll survive. Recently I installed a program which required me to update about 15 libraries, it was a pain, it wasn't mentally challenging, the program is installed and works now. If you stick in there you will succeed with your installations too. There is a higher learning curve than with windows since if you don't know what a directory is you'll have trouble in linux, whereas in windows pop cd's in and many autorun and install themselves. If that's the type of user you are, maybe linux is not for you.

    But overall the free software programs have made leaps bounds. Autoconf is working better than ever, the compilers are faster than ever, configuring the linux kernel has gotten much simpler, Gnome and KDE are very convenient and come with a slew of applications that are well functional. Office software for Linux has made many advances since the days of Applixware. Even installing the linux kernel source has gotten simpler. make xconfig is a dream come true. The kernel this year has made tremendous advances. The new pre-empting package alone makes 2.5 worth downloading. ALSA support is absolutely wonderful, configuration was almost a breeze. Compare to the old days where I needed much more specific info and addresses for my sound cards, along with DOS driver hacks to initialize them and that is improvement. The community has had many great years in the past, and will continue to have them in the future!!!!!

  79. Re:PDA Good || Server Bad by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    This wouldn't be Thailand, would it? There are several reasons why that would be so... mostly it's goverment policy.

  80. Pronunciation is my perogative by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

    like prounouncing Linux Lienux

    I call him Lienus, I call his program Lienux

    I don't say Linnus, so I don't say Linnux

    If you wanted me to say it differently you should have spelled it properly.

    As for alternatives, http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9 will do just fine tnx

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:Pronunciation is my perogative by psamuels · · Score: 1
      <title>Pronunciation is my perogative</title>

      Of course it is. It's also, as I said, a very efficient way to telegraph the fact that you're out of touch.

      I call him Lienus, I call his program Lienux

      I don't say Linnus, so I don't say Linnux

      I suppose you're one of those who pronounces km as "kill-o-meter" too, eh? I know this is hard to grasp, but etymology does not always dictate the preferred pronunciation. In this case we're talking about a registered trademark, and the trademark holder calls it "Linnux" - despite also calling himself "Lienus". By remarkable coincidence, this convention is shared by everyone I've met whose knowledge and skill of Linux I could respect.

      But this is silly. Pronounce it any way you want. Realise, though, that whether you like it or not, your accent conveys information about you. Hard fact o' life. And to me, your stance labels you as either non-technical or a Linux newbie. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    2. Re:Pronunciation is my perogative by LeBleu · · Score: 1

      Having listened to the audio file of Linus Torvalds saying Linux, I have to disagree. He calls it Leenooks, not Lihnux. However, as a native speaker of American English, I don't feel the need to pronounce Linux the same way as a native speaker of Finnish. Lihnux vs. Lienux is as silly an argument as tomayto vs. tomahto.

      --
      --LeBleu

      If you're reading this you're part of the mass hallucination that is Kevin the Blue.

    3. Re:Pronunciation is my perogative by psamuels · · Score: 1
      Having listened to the audio file of Linus Torvalds saying Linux, I have to disagree. He calls it Leenooks, not Lihnux.

      Ah, but that audio file was made back in '92 or so. Since then Linus moved to California and lost much/most of his accent. "Leee-noos" has become "Lie-nus" and "Lee-noox" has become "Linnux".

      However, as a native speaker of American English, I don't feel the need to pronounce Linux the same way as a native speaker of Finnish.

      Swedish, actually. (: But look at it this way, as a native speaker of American English: suppose you're talking about a baseball player with a .320 batting average. You say this as "zero point three two" while everyone around you says "three twenty". You can argue all you want that "zero point three two" is more correct and logical, but you still sound like a guy who doesn't follow baseball. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
  81. Oh, the irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, I get it. This OS that was all about *choice* and *freedom* can only become popular if it's forced down users throats?

    You sir, are an asshole of the first water.

  82. It's called Slackware by Xipe66 · · Score: 1

    Slackware has the answer to most of life's problems.

    ...you could also try Debian or Gentoo.

    --
    Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
  83. Some highlights of 2003 by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Informative
    Some highlights of 2003

    What can we look forward to this year? Off the top of my head:

    • XFree 4.3 - featuring 24bit with alpha channel animated cursors, expect to see lots of cool themed cursors on the X11 theming sites. New in this release also is the R&R extension, allowing on the fly resolution switching. No, we don't have transparent windows in this release, this currently is being held back by performance issues and internal rearchitecting. Nonetheless, everybody likes eyecandy, and this release will satiate our appetites at least for now.

    • GNOME2.2: Lots of goodies in this release, including Fontilus (drag and drop font installation/preview), a Network Neighbourhood style view, more font config options (as seen in redhat8), unified theming system, startup notification (but done properly this time), and more. It also features....

    • GStreamer! Now with KDE bindings too, hopefully 2003 will be the year that Linux multimedia gets started. Although still some way from 1.0, some parts of the gnome2.2 desktop will be using GStreamer. Just bear in mind if you write apps that use it - it's not API stable yet. In particular, it'll be boosted by ....

    • ALSA, which sports better support for sound cards and a cleaner architecture, as well as a whole host of other cool things. If only somebody would get off their ass and write a mixer/resampler server shim between libasound and the kernel, the message "another program is using this device" could be banished forever. But as far as I know nobody has picked up the gauntlet. ALSA is of course part of .....

    • Linux 2.6 which will be released sometime in June/July apparently. Some key desktop enhancements in this, including low latency and preempt, which is a step forward for desktop responsiveness. Think: it always feels like there's no CPU load. Kind of.

    • KDE 3.1 (I hadn't forgotten ;) which other than being a lot more secure now, sports tabs in Konqueror, better support for freedesktop.org standards, new default (pretty) artwork, folder icons that represent the folders contents, desktop sharing built in and a whole load more

    • The Gimp 1.4 - much better looking now, with revamped user interface, better text support, a vector tool, named cut/copy buffers and support for more plugin langauges.

    • More usability work both in and out of the desktop efforts. Expect to see the HIG mature and lots more apps become compliant, already non-GNOME apps like Gaim and XChat are getting higified (if you try their devel versions you'll see what I mean).

    • Probably lots more I've forgotten about...

    Mmmm, toys :)

  84. Show me the money by Peyote+Pekka · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has $40B in the bank and is still making money like they have a license to print it.

    Where do people keep getting this figure from, alt.folklore.urban? Show me the money or quote a reliable source.
    1. Re:Show me the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      38,652 (millions) to be exact. See Microsoft's 2002 Annual Report (available at www.microsoft.com's investor relations section) under "Financial Highlights" in the PDF version of the Report. Of that $38.7 billion, some portion is cash and some portion is short-term investments, but these are essentially the corporation's liquid assets. For your further information, they had revenues of $28.4 billion, and showed a net income of $7.8 billion. Having a cash inflow of >$28 billion and being able to just hang on to over a fourth of it makes Microsoft's financial position extremely sound for the next several years even if they don't lift a finger to keep "innovating". Apparently having monopoly power over a market is good for the ability to milk even the most mediocre products for some pretty serious profits.

    2. Re:Show me the money by Peyote+Pekka · · Score: 1

      Show me a reliable source -- one that ends in .gov. Corporations eagerly misrepresent their financial position. Enron was doing just as well as Microsoft until the books got a proper going over.

    3. Re:Show me the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break. It's okay to be skeptical and to wonder what's behind these numbers (as most companies will do their level best to just squeak out ahead of analyst expectations), but I don't know why you read sitting on a cash pile that big as some sign of health. A company hanging on to that much cash seems to me to be afraid of something (like needing to pay a large cash settlement in a lawsuit).

      A responsible, mature business would either look for development opportunities (to promote further growth) or pay a dividend to investors-- the ROI for cash and short-term investments is crap compared to the returns on a successful business line and when your company can't use its assets efficiently it should surrender that portion it does not need back to its investors. I consider Microsoft a company with some very large risks out there, that they are not sure they can manage well.

      As for their revenue numbers, I'm not going to doubt those. I have no reason to suspect Microsoft of pretending to bring in more money than they do. It's obvious that a huge percentage of the US software market is involved in paying them for Windows and Office. Whatever other ethical problems they may have, they don't need to lie about revenue to post impressive numbers.

  85. Re:This year: good, next year: ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, real blurry with RH. That's why they GPL everything they produce, and let people freely distribute the CDs (minor artwork exceptions aside).

    Get a clue.

  86. Compatibility Among Distributions by rinkjustice · · Score: 1

    Linux is damn near there already, but I think the myriad of choices out there is confusing people.

    I think the Linux movement at large should be concerned with having a filesystem hierarchy standard and be working for more common implementations (ie: the Linux kernel and other utilities provided by the GNU Project are but a few). There is such a thing as too much choice. Even the two primary package manager formats (rpm and deb) could be unified with Alien, which could be intergrated in a Linux distribution. Linux has the installation and GUI downpat IMO, but good multimedia/P2P programs are scarce, and even the ones that should work dependably don't (I just sent a bug report in to Real.com because RealPlayer 8 farted out on me). Collaboration on a few key projects might be the solution here.

    Finally, when you install games - I have Quake III for Linux - I don't think I should have to spend hours finding the right drivers and libs just to run the damn thing in 640x480. I was looking for old Voodoo2 drivers (I'm broke so I need to work with what I got) and 95% percent of the sites which supposedly had it were no longer up-and-running. I guess when the tech bubble burst, alot of people gave up on the Linux movement (or so it would seem). So maybe the last point is there needs to be reliable and comprehensive resources on the net that newbies and seasoned /. geeks can rely on.

    Linux deserves to be the defacto os, but it's going to take a coordinate effort to ever see this happen. And it can happen. *Ahem* I'm finished now.

  87. innovation drives it all by Pastis · · Score: 1

    Computing as we know will change. Computers will not always stay this do-all boxes as we have. They will be mobile phones, fridge and whatever people will dream in the future.

    But where does innovation come from? from young people who think differently. Many of the technologies we are using today where dreamed by students who had an idea, founded a company etc...

    Now look at how Linux starts to take in universities. Look how it gets accepted in Asia, etc...

    Give it time. People will come up with new technologies. And they will use Open source as a base for it as it will be the 'easiest' thing for them to do.

    Wait 2-3 years more. 40 Billion $ won't help Microsoft except if they match open source on its ease of spread.

    1. Re:innovation drives it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Wait 2-3 years more. 40 Billion $ won't help Microsoft except if they match open source on its ease of spread.

      Well, this gets my vote for the least reliable economic prediction for 2003.

      I'll back a well-organized company with a powerful marketing machine and $40bn over a bunch of college kids and social misfits with $0 any day.

      Sorry, but that's life !

    2. Re:innovation drives it all by Pastis · · Score: 1

      I didn't say with will go bankrupt! Just said that they won't keep their 95% martket posiition if they don't match Open Source (Linux) ease of spread. Microsoft already started to open the code to some universities and I am sure that even if they use different mean to fight back (e.g. legal ones), they will also have other initiatives towards the goal of making Windows more easy to spread. Otherwise 95% now will go to 90 or 85% in 2 - 3 years. (I never said Linux will dominate the world. I don't believe it).

      Look: Danish schools switched to Linux. Sony started to distribute PC with star office, HP releases machine with Linux in India, etc...

      I stand by my prediction.

  88. Slashdot=biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any doubt that slashdot would post a message putting down linux? Never. Linux sucks as a operating system, it is only a toy, made by hobbiests. Try a real os, like Freebsd, Netbsd, Darwin and the such.

  89. it's your predjudice that lets you down by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

    You see I'm from England and we talk a bit different.

    So yes, I do say kill-o-meter

    I'd prefer my 20 years in the computer industry to say more about me than how I pronounce the name of an obscure operating system.

    and oh btw, the reason tunelling over HTTP works is because many desktops only have Internet access via an HTTP proxy rather than every desk in the company being NATed to the internet.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:it's your predjudice that lets you down by psamuels · · Score: 1
      So yes, I do say kill-o-meter

      I knew I was going to get in trouble with that one - I couldn't remember for sure how you folks pronounced it. Even so, there are lots of words that aren't commonly pronounced as one would expect from their etymologies - I just can't think of any so blatant as "ki-lah-me-turr" as we say over here.

      I'd prefer my 20 years in the computer industry to say more about me than how I pronounce the name of an obscure operating system.

      I never meant to impugn your experience in the computer industry, just your experience with an obscure operating system. (:

      and oh btw, the reason tunelling over HTTP works is because many desktops only have Internet access via an HTTP proxy rather than every desk in the company being NATed to the internet.

      Hm, that's actually not a bad reason. Not that NATing is much harder than HTTP proxying, IMHO, but hey, it's all about choices.

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
  90. Re:PDA Good || Server Bad by Etyenne · · Score: 2

    I don't want to sound like a MS apologist, but we (the Linux community) really have no lesson to make to MS about server security this years. While 2001 was the year of shame for MS (Code Red|Blue|Red II, Nimba et cie), 2002 was a really bad year for OSS server software : OpenSSH exploit, Apache chunk encoding bug (Ramen), OpenSSL, etc.

    --
    :wq
  91. of *course* Linux sucks as an operating system! by timothy · · Score: 1

    It just sucks less than some of the other options.

    OS X sucks, too. But if you want to see at least *some* BSD/Darwin/non-Linux things, why not see apple.slashdot.org? :) Or the BSD section?

    Now, Yes, this was a silly troll, but Hey ;)

    Have a good 2003!

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  92. gstreamer, Yes ;) by timothy · · Score: 1

    Me, too re: Cinelerra -- does nothing but crash on my machine. Now, it's true I have no computer anywhere close to its listed processor requirements, but still, I had hoped to at least see it crawl along ;) Evidently it is useful to some people -- I'm just not one of them ;) What I look forward to is video-manipulation so simple that even I can use it without screaming.

    I hope / think you're right that when gstreamer stabilizes, my ideal world will be just a little bit closer.

    Would be nice if Red Hat or other Linux distro maker would hire Avery Lee to make a Linux version of VirtualDub!

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  93. Only a passing mention of Mozilla 1.0 ... by Etyenne · · Score: 4, Informative

    Likewise, while it really offers only a few major advantages (and some disadvantages) over KDE's Konqueror, Mozilla 1.0 finally did arrive on the scene attracting attention from many mainstream sources. While its impact on the "browser wars" may be minimal, it does promise a real alternative to Internet Explorer on pretty much any platform.



    I think the author downplayed the importance of Mozilla 1.0 :

    • It's the first closed-source program gone OSS that achieved wide success. Netscape betted on OSS in 1998 and they won. Actually, Mozilla outlive Netscape.
    • Lot's of people where denigrating OSS, pointing finger at how Mozilla was getting nowhere, would stay in beta perpetually, etc. Release 1.0 proved they where wrong and that OSS can work.
    • For once, we have a end-user OSS application that is the best of his class. You can argue that IE is best in this or that regard, but overall Mozilla seriously kick all the other option's butt.
    • Mozilla is pretty much the only serious alternative to the monopoly of IE as web browser (being multiplatform, standard compliant and feature-complete).


    For me, Mozilla 1.0 is THE event of the year 2002 for OSS.

    --
    :wq
    1. Re:Only a passing mention of Mozilla 1.0 ... by KieranElby · · Score: 1

      I agree Mozilla is the best browser out there at the moment, but I'm not sure its stability is a good argument for OSS right now.

      Don't get me wrong, I use it all the time, but v1.2 does crash / hang on me at least twice a day, and also has a habit of deciding to allocate 200Mb+ of memory from time to time.

  94. Re:Software Installation, apt4rpm etc by timothy · · Score: 1

    Happily installing nearly anything through apt4rpm, as you point out, is unusual because a) most people running rpm-based distros don't have apt4rpm and b) the small number of packages ready for grabbing via apt4rpm. chicken and egg, unfortunately ;)

    Someone's set of directions for installing dvd::rip on Red Hat 8.0 involved apt4rpm, which is how I heard of it -- those directions were written because it happened in that case that the right packages *were* in place on the freshrpms site.

    Since then, I have idly installed some other things from freshrpms, in some cases just to show people how wonderful apt is. apt-get install whateverIwant and BOOM.

    If there's one aspect of huffy elitism in the computer world which I'd like to see disappear, its the install machismo that says (and I am almost quoting here) "if you can't figure out how to install software X, you are an IDIOT!" Apt (and from the sound of it, autopackage will as well) skips the chest beating phase :) Software that goes on with a simple polite request -- that's what I like.

    Good luck, hopefully you'll achieve v1.0 this year!

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  95. You are assuming. . . by kfg · · Score: 1

    a single cook enviroment.

    KFG

  96. yEnc is in the house - get a helmet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "now widely accepted" part is in red. I guess they think if they say it enough it will become true.

    It is widely accepted. Once you figure out that people who complain about yEnc never post anything but complaints about yEnc, you can adjust your killfile accordingly and enjoy the binaries goodness the way Ghod intended, completely free of pissing and moaning.

  97. I like how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Red Hat 8 the feature that tells you there is a update, not you having to look go to a site to look for one. Yes this feature has been in Gnome a long time, but I've only use Gnome since RH8.

  98. Linux.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is good on the server-side. But on the desktop, it sucks ass! it's just as bloated, if not more, than Windows, and similarly non-intuitive.

  99. Attention time travellers: Windows doesn't crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know some of you are a little disoriented from the temporal flux, but Windows 95 Release 1 is gone away, okay? Windows works now.

    Linux is much like you remembered it, though, so that should be comforting. Yeah, X is pretty much the same experience, and there are Office clones that work great except when they don't. Why is it crawling? No, the box is pretty buff. Actually this is a 2Ghz machine with 512Mb RAM and a 128Mb graphics card. Crack the case if you don't believe me. X just never stopped sucking, that's all.

  100. BofH == teh fux0r3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the whole jack-off fantasy of IT guys throwing their weight around was always kind of overblown, and now it has definitely been staked in the heart. It's okay to say stuff like "luser" on Slashdot, because you have to get rid of your frustration somehow and you know your ass is expendable in today's market.

    You guys are so paranoid about astroturfing. All Bill Gates has to do is get one of his hirelings to pay Richard Stallman to address a business convention about the wonders of Free Software, then plant a shill in the audience to ask a question about "open source."

    Stallman starts raving and gibbering, everyone stares with their mouths open, a few cheaply-bought journalists play it up, boom. End of story, hope you had fun playing revolutionary, kthxbye.

  101. Reaction to Linux by dimss · · Score: 1

    The most important achievement for Linux in 2002 was improved people's reaction to it. At least here in Latvia.

    I use linux at home and at work for 3 years. When I stared work in my company in march 2001 managers choose Linux for servers mostly because Linux is free. Everybody except me refused to use linux as desktop OS because it was "too primitive and complex at the same time".

    Now there are only two reasons why my manager doesn't want to erase his XP -- lack of Microsoft Office and 1C Accounting package.

    Many people around me try Linux on their desktop computers and some of them like it. They come to me to ask an advice if something goes wrong. Now we maintain special document entitled "Linux Mandrake Installation Tips": http://159.148.190.67/~dimss/mdk-install-9.0.pdf (in Russian) for those interested in Linux.

  102. Without GNU/GPL linux is not linux! by Herkules · · Score: 0

    Remove GNU software and you have an unusable os! But just remove KDE and you get a speed up!

    Plus without GNU/GPL Linux would probably not be hear today. GPL is what's makes it better than BSD* (My opinion).

    --
    CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
  103. Insightful? (was: Re:Fonts That Don't Suck!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    whoever modded parent insightful should be drag out into the street and shot.

    why don't you leave tech stuff to those actually running X?


    Uhhhh. What is "PERL"?

    where did you try to look?
    this currently gives the most important sites within the first result set (by the way: why does mysql.com score so high?). i'd like to propose using lower case unless you know better.

    removing X (yes X!) from any given dist (which uses it) is relatively easy [i do so on old hardware == small budget and for the pro look *g*], removing perl (if it is in default install) is a lot more of a problem. coding in perl is fast (and dirty), the amount of modules is amazing.

    Apache: granted, this one should not be in any desktop default. it seems quite common (for dists) to use it to display html docs on a webserver rather than out of the the filesystem. this might be acceptable use with a lightweight alternative (e.g. boa) but apache mem footprint is to large for my taste.

    mysql: this is a true database (not Excel or Access). it may not be (an) oracle, but it already contains a lot of heavy (at least for me) math, as such i find it interesting. sql (meaning the language) is quite easy to understand and use (perl is a good one for this, as it is so easy on strings). MS is thinking about moving the entire(?) filesystem into a database, and some projects (here a rpg) are already using it, more a sure to follow. though i prefer postgres.

    php: diversity has it's prize (megs=harddisk=money), but one could (probably) not install anything depending on php.
    if you do use a http server and mysql, php is needed to support phpmyadmin (and you probably do want this one).

    about x11: the thread says it all: either there is a hardware problem, or you are talking about something other than x. it may include some quite old source, but so does windows (and mac-os is gone). creating a graphical windows system (with support available for hardware built before me up till the latest 3d hardware cards) is quite some project, though indeed there is an alternative ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/alan/Software/Obs olete/Mini-X/, but most probably not what you want.

  104. Re:Linux: NEVER Ready for Prime Time on the Deskto by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
    The main problem for Linux's wide acceptance is a congenital failure of the free software model, namely, that there is too much ego and not enough subservience to a standard

    Hmm, and you think Windows development is an egoless place of peace and harmony where all 5000 developers agree and think in tune with each other? I can tell you, it's not. Ego abounds.

    I have a Redhat/Gnome box. I daily suffer at least six different graphical file selection paradigms of various capabilities and presentations. One lets me scroll with the mouse wheel; another doesn't. One lists files in strict ASCII order; another ignores capitalization when sorting by name. And none approaches the ease and uniformity of the Windows standard.

    6? I could probably get up to 3 if I tried hard and included really old apps like Motif Emacs (which you don't use file selectors in anyway) or RealPlayer. The GTK filepicker does suck, it's a known problem. When there is a better one, there will be 2 pickers, both of which are quite good. If somebody wanted to standardise common dialogs so KDE apps could be set to use GTK print/file dialogs and vice-versa, I guess that could be done, it's just a case of somebody sitting down and hammering out a spec.

    But at least Microsoft has the luxury of dictating to their programmers that they SHALL adhere to a common look and feel.

    Try telling that to the developers of Trillian, Roxio CD Creator, hell, even Office doesn't use the Windows look and feel. Apple is just as bad, they give their own apps completely made up UIs seemingly on a whim. QuickTime 4 had such an abomination for a GUI, that wasn't at all standard on any platform (not even the mac), it earned a place in the UI hall of shame. The idea that only Linux has fractured UI standards is a fallacy. It's a "problem" that affects all platforms, and really isn't all that much of a problem. The lightwave GUI is utterly non standard, but once you get used to it quite productive for instance. Better a productive GUI for a pro tool than a "standard" windows one that acts how you expect but is slow as molasses to use.

    There's a line in one of the many HOW-TOs I've waded through that goes something like this:

    I think what that means is that if you're an admin and you can't fix/understand this problem, you probably shouldn't be an admin. Arrogant attitude? Yeah, maybe. Probably true though.

  105. My Hilights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MPLAYER
    This project has managed to become imho the best media player on any platform. Having been exposed to windows media players such as realone and divx recently , I can appreciate these guys' effort even more. MOZILLA - (the framework)
    Mozilla is simply amazing, I finally got bitten b y the XUL bug and have been losing much sleep to playing with this incredibly usefull tech. I am now contemplating forcing mozilla down the throats of my clients for intranet web based apps. =) PHOENIX - (the browser)
    An absolute GODSEND, and very late entry into this year's favorites =) Yet more proof that xul rocks. And there's prolly more I am forgetting.. but these stand out =)

  106. kilo karma by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

    no impunging taken

    the real reason I persist in say Lienux is that for my accent Linnux is a foreign pronunciation which means my mouth muscles don't get much practice saying it.

    Plus being corrected by someone says something about their attitude that might take a few weeks of working out by other linguistic means. Never underestimate your conversational partner.

    Did you like the obscure bit? I liked that one. Can't get much more obscure than my dying BSD network. I'm sat here installing a FAMP setup into a 486 overdrive to see how it will cope.

    NAT doesn't cache and makes it slightly tougher for malicious code to get route out. Not that I've done it myself, was just a snippet of knowledge from another mailing list.

    okayokay enough already

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  107. RPM isn't a cure all for me, for one reason. by Dthoma · · Score: 1

    It's so damn unstable. Really. I use Red Hat 8.0 and going (on the GNOME menu) System Settings > Packages causes it to bring up a dialog box about reading the system state and checking dependencies before it completely vanishes without a trace. So, the graphical list of packages doesn't work. up2date installed the latest version of Galeon (1.2.6) fine, but I didn't like it. When I try to uninstall it with "rpm -e galeon" it just freezes dead and has to be killed, meaning that Galeon is gone, but RPM still thinks it's there, so I can't install the RPM of version 1.2.5...

    And so on and so forth.

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

  108. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GNU/Linux writes about the state of you!

  109. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the
    Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea,
    Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if
    a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes
    me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know
    for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
    -- John Donne, "No Man is an Iland"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...