Interview with Havoc Pennington of Red Hat

hey by Mohammed+Al-Sahaf · 2003-09-14 22:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Its Xouvert, not Xoutert.

--
Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf

Re:hey by oever · 2003-09-14 23:13 · Score: 4, Informative

From the xouvert website:

What kind of a name is Xouvert?

Xouvert is named after the ancient Babylonian goddess of open windows, wooden digging implements, and moonlight. A notorious ritual among the higher levels of Freemasonry has kept her memory alive until now. Xouvert, awake!

Which is of course, complete bollocks. Xouvert is french for Xopen.

--
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.

This reminds me... by PakProtector · 2003-09-14 22:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

...somewhat of the time I said DOS was dead, soon to be replaced by OS/2 Warp... ...Well, not quite. But isn't it premature to predict the death of such a venerable OS?

--

Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"

Re:This reminds me... by zakezuke · 2003-09-14 22:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

I must admit, i'm a little confused by this. You can say that MS-Dos is dead as no one is developing for it anymore. In fact the last DOS version i'm aware of was IBMs PC-dos 2000, which to be honest I never saw.

You could say that it was killed by the more advanced operating systems of last decade of the 10th century. This would be fair and reasonable.

But Unix being dead... that seems a bit of a leap. It seems to me that development for Linux is actually helpful in keeping Unix alive. There are still a vast number of applications distributed for specific flavors of unix that are offered in their binary form only, and OSS seems to be damn fucking useful in keeping these systems up to date and useable.

--
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Re:This reminds me... by snake_dad · 2003-09-14 23:17 · Score: 3, Funny

You could say that it was killed by the more advanced operating systems of last decade of the 10th century. This would be fair and reasonable.
DOS wasn't perfect, had issues with memory, very large filesystems were not supported, 1.0 did not even have directories and the available commands were a sorry bunch compared to unix, but to say that OS's from the Middle Ages were better is taking it a bit too far, IMHO.

--
karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
Re:This reminds me... by BrokenHalo · 2003-09-14 23:53 · Score: 1

the more advanced operating systems of last decade of the 10th century
Hell, I thought I was getting a bit long in the tooth, but I hadn't noticed missing over a thousand birthdays since the really modern OSs of the 1970s, but I guess living in a reverse time-warp can do that to you.
Pity it left me old and wrinkly, though... :-)
Re:This reminds me... by aled · 2003-09-15 01:58 · Score: 1

Sorry but DOS is still used here, mostly in most retail apps, POS like PCs, etc. It's being slowly replaced by Linux and Windows alternatives, but is a cost effective way to reuse old hardware.

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"
Re:This reminds me... by cybermace5 · 2003-09-15 04:18 · Score: 1

DOS is still very much alive in embedded systems and industrial automation. Some part of that is due to companies just having old equipment, but there is also a huge base of knowledge and experience still out there. DOS is a "get it done" OS, nothing fancy, just a single-tasking system that gets you very good hardware performance.

With FreeDOS in existence and currently in active development, the DOS platform is going to be around for quite a while yet.

--
...
Re:This reminds me... by jgomez1 · 2003-09-15 04:28 · Score: 1

Veritas Bare Metal Restore relays on DOS boot floppies, with DOS SCSI drivers and DOS Ethernet-TCP/IP-NetBIOS drivers, when used with HP-Compaq Proliant Intel servers (which usually run Linux, Windows Server, etc.). You can hardly say Veritas is not a product being developed.

Also, Symantec Ghost 2003 still relays on DOS boot disks, also.

DOS is not dead. It just has gone kind of embeded on niche applications. Quite similar to what is happening with UNIX, in fact.
Re:This reminds me... by scrytch · 2003-09-15 05:13 · Score: 1

UNIX continues to evolve through standards like POSIX and Unix98, and thus a no-frills POSIX system is pretty damn functional. DOS had no such steering, and arguably it didn't really need it, since it's more of a extended BIOS than anything else, i.e. the hardware really ran the show. It still has its uses, mostly for providing a loading framework for simple drivers.

It's a matter of time til the sun burns out. I should imagine it's a matter of considerably less time til Unix is irrelevant. Saying "it's a matter of time" is really quite pithy...

--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.

http://www.freeesktop.org/? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-14 22:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Not to put to fine a point on it but your hyperlink is incorrect

http://www.freeesktop.org/

Re:http://www.freeesktop.org/? by hatrisc · 2003-09-14 23:26 · Score: 2

it may habe been nice to provide the correct link. http://www.freedesktop.org

--
I write code.

Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-14 22:13 · Score: 1, Funny

An informative, on-topic first post!

Re:Amazing! by Smoking · 2003-09-14 23:24 · Score: 1

There has to be some trick...
Re:Amazing! by Skater · 2003-09-15 02:24 · Score: 1

...that didn't brag about being first post, either. Nice.

UNIX is dying? by Dancin_Santa · 2003-09-14 22:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think you can seriously say that UNIX is dying and say that Linux is killing it. Linux IS UNIX.

Unless you are trying to say that commercial UNIX systems are losing ground to Linux, it simply doesn't make sense to make such a false distinction between UNIX and Linux. They are one and the same.

Re:UNIX is dying? by Chris+Sontag · 2003-09-14 22:33 · Score: 5, Funny

He has it the wrong way round, my friend. Do not listen to the lies. Linux is like a snake we are going to cut into pieces. Unix will rise again! We will push those crooks, those mercenaries back into the swamp. They are retreating on all fronts. Their legal effort is a subject of laughter throughout the world.

--

Chris Sontag - Senior Vice President and General Manager, SCOsource
Re:UNIX is dying? by martin-boundary · 2003-09-14 22:33 · Score: 3, Funny

So what you're saying is: "Luke, I *am* your father."
"Nooooooooooooooooo!"
Re:UNIX is dying? by MoralHazard · 2003-09-14 22:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wha happen? You HAVE to be trolling. Come on--what?

Just because they both work with a BASH shell, they were both written in C, and they were both coded and championed by a geek clique don't make them both UNIX. Or are we going to say that BeOS is UNIX, too? Or how about Win2K with Cygwin? That looks a lot like UNIX, so it must be.

Can anyone believe this was at 5 (insightful)?
Re:UNIX is dying? by MoThugz · 2003-09-14 22:40 · Score: 1

GNU Not Unix.

--
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Re:UNIX is dying? by More+Karma+Than+God · 2003-09-14 23:19 · Score: 2, Funny

So is it SCO/Gnu/Linux or is it Gnu/SCO/Linux?

--
Go here to create your own Slashdot dis
Re:UNIX is dying? by godders · 2003-09-14 23:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well what's generally accepted as "Linux" these days is actually correctly referred to as GNU/Linux.
Re:UNIX is dying? by Illbay · 2003-09-14 23:49 · Score: 1, Funny

Wha happen?
Somebody set up us the bomb.

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Re:UNIX is dying? by jhdsl · 2003-09-15 00:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Linux smells like UNIX, so it *is* UNIX :-)

More points:
Linux uses the "everything is files" philosophy, Win2K does not, Cygwin does not.

Linux has all "traditional" UNIX API:s.

Internally in the kernel, Linux has a lot of "traditional" UNIX solutions, tty/ptys, serial ports, filesystem mounts, networking, etc. is very UNIX.

Most utilities are UNIX-utilitie (cu, ls, mount, etc.).

Sysadmin stuff is basically UNIX (/etc/init, runlevels, inittab, and more).

Linux is therefore much more UNIX than Cygwin, BeOS or anything from Microsoft.

It just feels like UNIX in a way that other OSes does not. It therefore *is* UNIX in my book.
Not trademark UNIX, the Open Group defines that, but neither is Cygwin, BeOS or Win2K.
Re:UNIX is dying? by emil · 2003-09-15 00:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just imagine for a moment what might happen if Sun released some version of the Solaris kernel under the GPL.

Solaris is far more scalable than Linux; Linux would begin bleeding enterprise market share, and would probably never recover. Solaris doesn't seem to scale down very well, so it is probable that Linux would retain its embedded systems market share.

The moment that Linux becomes a real threat to the software environment of an E15k, I have to believe that Sun will do whatever is necessary to protect this segment.

Of course, the sooner that Sun does this, the sooner that the question of enterprise Linux is put to rest. Sun is probably dragging its feet because they don't want to see Solaris running on the HP Superdome (especially since HP is killing their own UNIX and thereby depressing sales). They already have to contend with Solaris running on Fujitsu Primepower (which are arguably better machines than an E15k), but I am convinced that eventually, Sun will have to level the playing field by truly opening the Solaris source.
Re:UNIX is dying? by DrWhizBang · 2003-09-15 01:06 · Score: 1

I don't think you can seriously say that UNIX is dying and say that Linux is killing it. Linux IS UNIX.

McBride?!!! Wake up, McBride!!! I can't pass in my code in your handwriting, now can I? ...

Seriously though, linux is not unix. or at least. UNIX is the crufty old stuff that linux used to want to be like. Linux may look like UNIX in some ways, but it is not. It does it's own stuff now.

--
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
Re:UNIX is dying? by tuffy · 2003-09-15 01:38 · Score: 1

Just imagine for a moment what might happen if Sun released some version of the Solaris kernel under the GPL.
Solaris is far more scalable than Linux; Linux would begin bleeding enterprise market share, and would probably never recover. Solaris doesn't seem to scale down very well, so it is probable that Linux would retain its embedded systems market share.

Solaris scales very very well on Sparc hardware, for obvious reasons. But I haven't seen much evidence that it scales just as well on x86 hardware, where Linux has more experience. If the Solaris kernel and core OS suddenly embraces the GPL, it's much more likely that Linux will assimilate Solaris' advantages on Sparc hardware and usurp it rather than the other way around - simply because more people know Linux than Solaris.

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:UNIX is dying? by green+pizza · 2003-09-15 02:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just imagine for a moment what might happen if Sun released some version of the Solaris kernel under the GPL.

This is happening now, though not with Sun/Solaris... SGI's Altix handles up to 64 processors on a Linux kernel using the patches they release as opensource. As SGI hacks away at their bigmem and numa patches, they'll be able to handle more and more processors. The plan is to eventually graft enough IRIX technology to support just as many processors on Altix as they do with MIPS processors in Origin with IRIX.

Even if you aren't a fan of Itanium2, Linux, or NUMA, these patches are bringing some nifty high-end tech to the free software arena.
Re:UNIX is dying? by Wdomburg · 2003-09-15 02:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

Solaris is far more scalable than Linux

Solaris also sucks hairy moose cock on Intel.

Not to mention that Linux performs better on the "low end" (read 2 to 4 CPU) configurations that dominate the computer market. Is "enterprise scalability" important? Yes, very very much so, but only in a tiny tiny fragment of the enterprise market.
Re:UNIX is dying? by B'Trey · 2003-09-15 02:40 · Score: 1

Unless you are trying to say that commercial UNIX systems are losing ground to Linux

That's exactly what's being said. There will still be computers running various flavors of Unix for quite some time, just as there are still computers running DOS and OS/2 and BeOS. But the number of companies selling UNIX variants will decrease until none are left. Coding resources focused on adding new features will shrivel up and die. Bug fixes and maintenance coding will continue for awhile but it, too, will go away as companies stop supporting older versions. Eventually, if you want to purchase a modern *nix OS, you'll be bying some variant of Linux.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:UNIX is dying? by bartok · 2003-09-15 04:49 · Score: 1

The is this company called SCO that would sue Sun if they would GPL Solaris.

It will never happen.
Re:UNIX is dying? by BawheeD · 2003-09-15 06:20 · Score: 1

No, you cant have that one. For a long time now, books, texts, and tutorials have been drumming into me that linux is not unix.
It's a kernel that complies with POSIX standards. BSD's are more unix like than linux, and as somone said, linux does its own thing now.
Re:UNIX is dying? by fredrik70 · 2003-09-15 06:55 · Score: 1

1. well, everything but sockets, look to plan9 if you really, really want *everything* as a file.

2. So does windows pretty much, win2000 is posix compliant. see here

3 - 5. true

6. Well, it certanly *feels* more unix, but it's actually nothing but a clone of a lot of unix stuff. Also a lot of what ppl see as unix nowadays is actually GNU stuff, which is, as we all know, *not* unix stuff, at least according to it's creator! ;-)

--
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Re:UNIX is dying? by B'Trey · 2003-09-15 07:53 · Score: 1

The moment that Linux becomes a real threat to the software environment of an E15k, I have to believe that Sun will do whatever is necessary to protect this segment.

OK, maybe I'm a little dense here but you'll have to explain this one to me. Exactly how would releasing Solaris under the GPL benefit Sun? So you have people using free Solaris instead of free Linux. So what? It's still free; Sun isn't making any money off of it. Sun might be able to charge for support but if Solaris is GPL, so can a number of other companines, and probably quite a bit cheaper.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:UNIX is dying? by hikaru1 · 2003-09-15 13:55 · Score: 1

It therefore *is* UNIX in my book.

while i don't really agree with you, i have additional evidence to support your position. linux is viewed, even by the academic community, as actually being unix. i am currently in a class titled "INTRO TO UNIX using linux". the teacher didn't specifically say much at all about the difference, and the general impression she gave was that linux is a type of unix.

--
i'm an artist.

UNIX / LINUX by Manos+Batsis · 2003-09-14 22:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Geeeez, lets get some things even I know straight:

Linux is (in a way) derived from UNIX, so UNIX is not getting dead any time soon
Linux is not as mature as the UNIXes used in demanding production environments, so UNIX is not getting dead any time soon
UNIX is not getting dead any time soon

Re:UNIX / LINUX by silas_moeckel · 2003-09-14 23:21 · Score: 1

Here Here somebody that understands that Liux may be good but it missing a pile of features to make it realy work in single box no downtime for even scedualed maitnence production the nitch currently filled by Sun and IBM's AIX for the most part.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:UNIX / LINUX by libra-dragon · 2003-09-15 03:12 · Score: 1

If you took all of the good UNIX stuff and put it into Linux, you'd end up with Solaris.

What's that rumbling sound? by BabyDave · 2003-09-14 22:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Is it an earthquake? A herd of elephants?

No, it's all the SCO jokers, with their (+5, Funny)'s at the ready! Time to run for cover, guys!

Re:What's that rumbling sound? by hype7 · 2003-09-14 23:53 · Score: 1

Is it an earthquake? A herd of elephants?

No, it's all the SCO jokers, with their (+5, Funny)'s at the ready! Time to run for cover, guys!

Oh come on. The interview is with a guy named Havoc Pennington. I'm sure there'll be at least a few original (+5, Funny)'s in the stampede.

-- james

Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by MoralHazard · 2003-09-14 22:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

I really, really doubt that all of these efforts to push Linux onto the desktop will tend to attract more "developer"-type users, as opposed to more "user"-type users.

New developer-users make contributions, bug fixes, and give intelligent feedback on problems and solutions. Your secretary, on the other hand, will probably not be much use when it comes to putting out bug reports. So I'm not all that excited by Redhat's ever-onward desire to convert the masses. Actually, I'm a little bit DIS-excited.

Nobody hassles a thing when it's a fringe-user, ubergeek phenomenon. There's a reason why SCO is fucking around with Linux and not the BSDs--Linux is getting popular and widespread enough now that slimeballs like D and the boyz see opportunities to milk it. Sure, it's nice that IBM contributed all they did, but it wasn't a free ride.

(Not that the BSDs are dying, or anything--give them another couple of years, and maybe they'll get sued by a huge mulitnational... oh, wait.)

I'm NOT saying that it's a bad thing that more people use Linux, just that the next 10,000 users of RH's pre-packaged, duh-whats-a-compiler will be substantially less of a pure good thing for MY Linux experience than the the first 1,000 kernel contributors were. Even if nobody else whips out a lawsuit for a while (knock wood), the new luser influx will be at least temporarily troubling until people start getting up to speed. Go check out what's happened to the Samba listserv, if you don't know what I mean--I unsub'd entirely because of the 1:100 ratio of {sensible questions|useful answers} to droolers who can't find a fucking man page, let alone a step-by-step HOWTO.

I swear, if Redhat ever actually gets into the black, I'm switching to Apple, stat. Fuck market share--I want something where nobody will bother me with free tech support requests.

Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by !the!bad!fish! · 2003-09-14 22:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I swear, if Redhat ever actually gets into the black, I'm switching to Apple, stat. Fuck market share--I want something where nobody will bother me with free tech support requests.
Decembler 2002 - Red Hat has reported a profit using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
I recomend OpenVMS if you really don't want any bother.

--
Kids today are tyrants. They contradict their parent, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers. - Socrates 400 BC
Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by Illbay · 2003-09-14 23:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

So I'm not all that excited by Redhat's ever-onward desire to convert the masses. Actually, I'm a little bit DIS-excited.
So in other words, "user"-users like me aren't really welcome when it comes to Linux, because we won't "make Linux better" through code-contribution and timely bug reports?
Um, may I ask what is the raison d'etre for any operating system?
Following your logic, no one but automobile designers should be allowed to drive automobiles.

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by BrokenHalo · 2003-09-14 23:57 · Score: 1

I recomend OpenVMS if you really don't want any bother
Or better still, MCP :-)
Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by Chanc_Gorkon · 2003-09-15 00:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now these users may have already read the FAQ but because the FAQ is sometimes wrote by a elitest prick or someone who assumes too much, they are asking the question on the list. People should write documentation like they were writing it for someone who has never seen Linux before and not for someone who is in it everyday. PLUS,if it was not for people wanting to use Linux, you would not HAVE a Linux unless you want to depend on Debian unstable for production and I sure don't. If Red Hat, SuSE and Mandrake all die, then all that will be left is Debian and I am sure they won't have their new installer ready by then....of course I could be wrong and it may already be stable (the installer that is). Or if SCO has their way, we may have to wait for HURD to become stable (hah ahhahahahhahhhaaaaa!).

--
Gorkman
Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by IamTheRealMike · 2003-09-15 00:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm NOT saying that it's a bad thing that more people use Linux, just that the next 10,000 users of RH's pre-packaged, duh-whats-a-compiler will be substantially less of a pure good thing for MY Linux experience than the the first 1,000 kernel contributors were
What an incredibly arrogant attitude. I am not a kernel hacker, and if I can avoid it, probably never will be. When I first started using Linux, I didn't know C, yet today I hack on Wine, which is used by a metric ton of people, and am busy writing and designing autopackage, which from the feedback we're getting seems to be something that people want. It'll make it easier for luser types to use Linux.
Oh, and guess what. I use Red Hat 9, because I prefer getting stuff done to dicking about with my WM configuration. So sue me.
By your logic, I should never have been allowed in, because these people might *gasp* hassle you for tech support.
Let me make you aware of something. If it weren't for those legions of "lusers" out there, buying their Dell PCs and surfing MSN with Internet Explorer, it's highly unlikely most of us could afford a PC at all. The only reason I can have my own computer is because I can put together a decent little box for less than 500, and the only reason I can do that is because economies of scale caused by mass market acceptance make it cheap for me.
If those people didn't use computers, there would be no mass market, no economies of scale, and I wouldn't have a computer at all! I'd never have been able to learn C, hack Wine or write my software.
So, feel free to spit and vilify people who don't match up to your supposed guru-ness (though I really doubt you are as good a developer as you think you are), I for one will continue to enjoy cheap hardware and free software, and I won't bitch when newbies ask me questions. That's fair game, in my books.
Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by Ubertech · 2003-09-15 01:39 · Score: 1

Oh, where are the mod points when I need them. Even when I have them, it is very rare that I come across a comment worth modding up.

You, sir, have one of the best perspectives on users that I have seen in a long time, even to the point of making me rethink my attitude toward the people I support on a dialy basis.

As much as I tire of answering the same stupid questions for what feels like the 10 millionth time, I have to agree that if it were not for all the "clueless newbs" out there, my own ability to buy cheap hardware and experiment would be severely limited.

Thanks.

As for Red Hat, freedesktop.org, and all of that, it amazes me that people see it as a bad thing when someone tries to create a consisten user interface in the Linux world. It's good for the people who just want to get work done and not worry about configuring every little thing. For the tweak happy among us, you are all still perfectly free to download and install any interface you like, even on Red Hat.

--
Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger.
Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by bicho · 2003-09-15 02:06 · Score: 1

Well, I'd think that its because of most of the rants about linux that you see in "newbie" discussion bords/e-mail lists/etc...

Many newbies are ok, and they seem to be ok with learning of new ways of doing things. But many others seem to know that Linux Is Not UniX, but fail to acknowledge that Linux is not windows either.

And as more and more people get converted from Windows to Linux, this will get significantly more common and annoying.

Thats one reason why I dont show Linux to relatives (and sometimes friends too) that look at computers as little more than a typewriter and a stereo (or something like that).

--

errera hunamum ets
Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by IamTheRealMike · 2003-09-15 03:32 · Score: 1

Don't worry about mod points. A nice comment agreeing with me is great. A nice comment saying I might have changed somebodies mind is just the best ;)
Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by Centinel · 2003-09-15 11:28 · Score: 1

I swear, if Redhat ever actually gets into the black, I'm switching to Apple, stat. Fuck market share--I want something where nobody will bother me with free tech support requests.
Dude, you should check out NetBSD if you want a geek-ish user community and a top-notch OS
Re:Not that I have a bad attitude, but... by IamTheRealMike · 2003-09-15 23:57 · Score: 1

Quick tip for the terminal thing, add these two lines to your /etc/fonts/fonts.conf file: <dir>/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1</dir> <dir>/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/OTF</dir> Th en do a killall gnome-terminal to force it to reload the fonts configuration. You can now choose MiscFixed 10 as the terminal font, which gives you clear, crisp non-AA fonts.

Re:You are wrong... by botzi · 2003-09-14 22:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

duh-whats-a-compiler will be substantially less of a pure good thing for MY Linux experience than the the first 1,000 kernel contributors were.

You forgot that the developers are those that give birth and educate, but it's the users that become close lifetime friends. The people who use a software(even on some profan level) certainly are not so useful for the products development as the programmers team, but are crucial to its survival. A product will die without its users and gaining a larger user DB can not be a bad thing.

--
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!

Linux vs Unix by mantera · 2003-09-14 22:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think the momentum linux has over Unix is a matter of its GPL license, which makes it widely and freely available, and ensures a constant flux, NOT that it's technically superior. I think it's generally established that Solaris or FreeBSD for example, are technically superior to linux, however, both Sun's proprietary or BSD licenses are the detriments of those two Unices in the face of the Linux onslaught. (do you like how I used Unices as a plural to Unix? I do.)

Linux, ironically, now fits into the legendary "worse is better" more so than Unix does.

Re:Linux vs Unix by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-14 23:45 · Score: 1, Informative

What about the BSD licensing makes FreeBSD less "widely and freely" available? It is the GPL, not the BSD license, which imposes strict restrictions of use. Therefore an OS like FreeBSD can find itself used in business environments without fear of reprisal. FreeBSD is significantly more free.

And for you GNUtards who are going to flame me with "GPL is more free because it gives the developers more rights," no it fucking doesn't. It takes away their rights to use the project as they see fit. BSD doesn't in any way remove that right. That's like saying that patents are more free because it gives the patent holders more rights.
Re:Linux vs Unix by mantera · 2003-09-15 00:29 · Score: 1

Yes; FreeBSD's license is more free than the GPL. There's no doubt about that.

However, the GPL somewhat ensures the exchange and flux of code; I would argue that it is the GPL that makes the difference in momentum betwee linux and BSD. With BSD, people can use it however they see fit, with linux, they're sorta obliged to contribute back modifications if they use it.
Re:Linux vs Unix by ultrabot · 2003-09-15 01:19 · Score: 1

I think it's generally established that Solaris or FreeBSD for example, are technically superior to linux, however,

No, they aren't. FreeBSD is not superior to Linux, even if FreeBSD advocates like to tell you so. Hell, if it was indeed superior to Linux, they could scrap Linux altogether, fork FreeBSD under the GPL, and build on that. FreeBSD just recently got SMP, for chrissakes. Constantly repeating the superiority of FreeBSD (which the advocates insist on doing) doesn't necessarily make it so.

And as far as Solaris goes, it's just a matter of time. One has to be pretty short sighted to expect Solaris to thrive in the future - already it is considered a "legacy" OS, to be replaced by a Linux/Windows box after a while.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Re:Linux vs Unix by mantera · 2003-09-15 01:38 · Score: 1

FreeBSD just recently got SMP, for chrissakes.

The emphasis in FreeBSD is on quality, not on including whatever is recent. I would argue that the SMP in FreeBSD is superior to that in linux.

Yes, linux has the latest, but FreeBSD has the better quality stuff.
Re:Linux vs Unix by Cro+Magnon · 2003-09-15 02:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe, but until recently if you needed SMP, BSD wasn't even an option! If you need support for the latest hardware BSD may not be an option. For many people Linux IS better than BSD!

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Linux vs Unix by pirhana · 2003-09-15 02:23 · Score: 1

First of all, I have utmost respect to BSD lecense and all the softwares released under that license as they are perfect Free(speech) softwares. But I have to say that it doesnt help to perpetuate the freedom(I know its not meant to be like that..). And this IMHO, is the reason why BSD systems didnt achieve the commercial success linux enjoyed. Average deveopers think like this "I can give the source code , but you too should do that". Business firms are even more paranoid. IBM cant think of making some modifications to FreeBSD only to see that SUN makes some twists and outperforms the IBM version and vice versa. As GPL better fits with this philosophy, it became success. Just go through sourceforge or freshmeat and see whats the proportion of BSD and GPL license there . You can find that even developers who use BSD systems for development tend to release their code under GPL. You might say that "I am glad when more and more people use it , I dont mind whether its proprietory or free". But MOST of the people dont think like this. They think like this "microsoft taking my code and later screwing us up ?????? No way !!!!".

--
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Re:Linux vs Unix by orpheus2000 · 2003-09-15 02:49 · Score: 1

You're evaluation of Solaris is short-sighted, I'm afraid. Please direct me to the portion of the Linux kernel where I can swap out CPU's, memory and entire portions of the centerplane (that's the back-side bus for you Lintel people) without even going to single-user mode, much less powering down the machine. Also, what were the benchmarks for Linux running full SMP on 100+ CPU's? Oh wait, there weren't. And if it did, you wouldn't have the guys from Cray working on it like sun did for hte 10/12/15k to make the scalability linear.

Come back with those comments when Linux can do massive-scale SMP and dynamic reconfiguration and other 'legacy' features. Until then, STFU and go play on your dual-whatever.
Re:Linux vs Unix by ultrabot · 2003-09-15 03:28 · Score: 1

You're evaluation of Solaris is short-sighted, I'm afraid.

I don't think so. Solaris has all the whizbang features right now, but they aren't important enough to most people to justify using it instead of non-proprietary Linux. And Linux will have all these features, with time.

Also, what were the benchmarks for Linux running full SMP on 100+ CPU's?

Not necessary, a dual processor x86 box can do the same thing ;-).

Also, what were the benchmarks for Linux running full SMP on 100+ CPU's?

32 CPUs is good enough for most purposes, and as far as systems bigger than that go, I don't really care. And neither does 95% of the industry. SGI and Fujitsu have some large scale Linux SMP machines, though I don't know whether they are single system image setups.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Re:Linux vs Unix by Karn · 2003-09-15 07:17 · Score: 1

You obviously don't understand the GPL, and it appears you have it backwards.

The GPL is a license whose goal is ensure that an end user has some rights with respect to a piece of software. It imposes no restrictions on end usage, it only imposes restrictions on people/companies who want to re-distribute GPLed code.

So you favor developer/corporation rights, I favor end user rights. Arguing over which one gives more freedom is not going to go anywhere. We'll just let the software and the chosen licenses speak for themselves.

--

Why do I keep typing pythong?
Re:Linux vs Unix by Brandybuck · 2003-09-15 12:00 · Score: 1

FreeBSD is not superior to Linux. On the other hand, Linux is not superior to FreeBSD. They both have different priorities and goals, and to claim one is better than the other is complete nonsense.

FreeBSD ignored SMP for a long time because frankly there was no one demanding it. When less than 1% of the user base even has a need for it, why bother? They also kept SMP in -CURRENT for a long time instead of throwing it out to the world before it was ready. Linux on the otherhand is obsessed with supporting every piece of hardware out there yesterday, and had SMP about two years before FreeBSD did. But it took a while before it was stable. Both approaches are valid. One focuses on the core stability and the other focuses on the bleeding edge.

One has to be pretty short sighted to expect Solaris to thrive in the future - already it is considered a "legacy" OS...

"Legacy" is a meaningless word today. My new system has a BIOS that refers "Legacy USB". What they heck is legacy USB? It took me a while, but I finally figured out it meant USB 1.0 devices. So in other words, my brand new mouse and keyboard are "legacy" devices. Go figure.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Linux vs Unix by Brandybuck · 2003-09-15 12:08 · Score: 1

I think the momentum linux has over Unix is a matter of its GPL license, which makes it widely and freely available

Well, you might have a point if there were a whole bunch of proprietary BSD derived systems out there. But that's not true. Thinking about, I can't think of one. Both SunOS and BSD/OS started with AT&T encumbered CSRG code. On the other hand, you have Darwin which is based on free BSD code, and which has been declared Open Source and Free Software by the guys who matter.

The momentum behind Linux has very much to do with the USL lawsuit (the SCO of its day) and extremely little to do with the licensing.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Linux vs Unix by ultrabot · 2003-09-15 17:07 · Score: 1

FreeBSD is not superior to Linux. On the other hand, Linux is not superior to FreeBSD. They both have different priorities and goals, and to claim one is better than the other is complete nonsense.

Exactly. That never stopped all the FreeBSD fanboys from describing FreeBSD as superior, possessing some intangible quality of superiority that Linux would never reach.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Re:Linux vs Unix by Brandybuck · 2003-09-15 18:10 · Score: 1

You can't really blame them though. It's just a reaction to all the Linux fanboys describing Linux as superior, possessing some intangible quality of superiority that FreeBSD would never reach.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Linux vs Unix by ultrabot · 2003-09-16 02:49 · Score: 1

t's just a reaction to all the Linux fanboys describing Linux as superior

Really, I haven't seen that happening. Linux fanboys usually don't talk about FreeBSD all that much.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Re:Linux vs Unix by Brandybuck · 2003-09-16 05:45 · Score: 1

Cruise the BSD section of Slashot at -1 threshold for a while. Many stories there will have more Linux-fanboy posts than ontopic posts.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Linux vs Unix by libra-dragon · 2003-09-16 13:31 · Score: 1

The other 5% of the industry that cares about large 100+ CPU systems is the most important segment. Just because there are a few installations of these systems, that doen't mean that millions of people don't use/rely upon them daily.
Take OpenVMS and Tandem NSK.
Quote from HP:
NonStop servers process 66 percent of credit card transactions, 95 percent of securities transactions, and 80 percent of automated teller machine (ATM) transactions. They also participate in 75 percent of electronic funds transfer (EFT) networks.
Sure the number of systems running those OSs number in the hundreds, but when those systems process nearly every EFT transaction, stock transation and E911 call; suddenly it doesn't matter what 95% of the industry thinks...
We're really just talking about apples and oranges here, but to say that UNIX is dead because of a dwindling marketshare is ignorant. Those people who say that UNIX/BSD is dead would also say that OpenVMS and Tandem NSK are dead too --and that is short-sighted.

Heh by arvindn · 2003-09-14 22:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Verisign could have made a lot of money by redirecting http://www.freeesktop.org/ and http://www.xoutert.org/ to their own ad pages :-)

but ... I have a bad attitude. by azaroth42 · 2003-09-14 22:56 · Score: 1

So, uhh, you use an operating system based on how many people ask stupid questions about -applications which run on it-?

Just don't interact with people who ask 'stupid' questions. If you don't like the signal:noise ratio on a list, unsubscribe and look for a dev list.

That said, Linux is probably better without elitist jerks giving it a bad name anyway.

Gnome will kill Linux by DrSkwid · 2003-09-14 22:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Dan Egnor says it best :

Somewhere deep inside the secret headquarters of the RedHat/GNOME/Ximian/Mozilla Cabal, there's a hidden document with a list of everything in Unix you know and love, marked with a date for its final expurgation. I think 'ls' is slated to be finally replaced with a symlink to 'nautilus' in 2007. Except that symlinks will have been replaced by ".shortcut" files, which are interpreted by the Mono implementation of GNOME-VFS.

Luckily the spirit on Unix lives on.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

Havoc Pennington? by JazFresh · 2003-09-14 23:02 · Score: 3, Funny

It is me, or does that sound like the name of the next Bond villain?

Re:Bad article style by RobotRunAmok · 2003-09-14 23:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why is it that all interviews online are posted as question, answer, question, answer... Why not do what grown up journalists do and actually write something?

Because most online tech-site interviewers are *not* "grown up journalists," or even writers, and their operations are in fact run on shoe-string budgets which do not provide for in-person interviews. Consequently, when the interview is being conducted over the phone, through IM, or across several e-mail sessions, it's kinda tough to get a feel for what type of sofa upon which the interviewee is sitting.

Note, too, that most of the readers of tech-site interviews are not as discerning as you. They are looking for "news" or "answers" -- and quickly. No one browses OSNews in anticipation of savoring the linguistic bons mots of some proto-Hemingway.

Not quite accurate.. by floydman · 2003-09-14 23:14 · Score: 1

"Unix is dying"...

He is partially right, the above post mentions that Linux is another Unix flavor, so Unix is not dting which is true...

Where i work, there are almost 24 AIX nodes (16 processors each), endless Solaris blade server.. and all of these are being replaced by Linux clusters. My team and i are responsible to get the app.'s on Unix to be up and running on the cluster... BOTTOM LINE he is partially right...but not quite

--
The lunatic is in my head

How can a prediction be premature? by Chuck+Chunder · 2003-09-14 23:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

By definition a prediction has to be made before the event.

Nor does the statement "it's only a matter of time" seem that outlandish. Already we've seen Linux being adopted by major Unix vendors. It's not unlikely that it will continue to make inroads in core areas and gradually drive their traditional offerings to more "niche" areas which ultimatly may be too small to warrent the expense of maintaining a seperate offering.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Re:Cool name by Wirr · 2003-09-14 23:47 · Score: 2, Funny

I was thinking the same.
It's a bit like naming your son Warlock or Judas.
Possibly his parents were thinking of his adult sex life, like "Go force young beatiful girls and wreak Havoc".

I think this is my worst post ever.

Havoc Pennington has the right idea by connect4 · 2003-09-14 23:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Desktop standards are critical to Linux achieving greater desktop market share.

ISP: Hello?

Mom & Dad: Hi, I can't connect. I'm having trouble getting the modem to dial . . .

ISP: Ok, whaddya got? A Mac? Some kind of windows?

Mom & Dad: Uh, yeah . . . it's a PC

ISP: Ok, click on "start" in the bottom left hand corner of the desktop . . . . .

Mom & Dad: Um . . . I can't see start, there's like a "red hat / footprint / dinosaur" in the "bottom left / bottom right corner.

ISP: OK, we only support mac and windows, right. Bye now.

-Click-

The issue in this example is that tech-savvy call centre staff with no more than thirty minutes training can be expected to support mac and windows dialups over the phone. But until the same can be done for Linux, ISPs (for example) will never support it. This is a big barrier to Linux take-up by "Mom & Dad" type users. Standardising (across distros) things like the location of the pppd configuration would allow (again, for the sake of this example) ISPs to provide quick training to staff on how to support Linux users.

Things like this are great for Linux penetration, 'cause when someone rings their ISP saying "My computer won't start up properly, it states that ntoskrnl is missing, and I don't have the CD or windows key", rather than saying "too bad call back when you have the CD", the ISP support staff can prod these "Mom & Dad" users in the direction of Linux. Not possible when the ISPs position is that Linux can't be supported and staff who try are wasting company time.

Re:Havoc Pennington has the right idea by Azghoul · 2003-09-15 00:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not to pick on your nice thought, but if I put Linux on Mom & Dad's machine, you can be sure they'll be calling ME when something goes 'wrong', not the ISP.

In fact, if your parents don't call you already, even with their Windows questions, you must suck. Or be a bad child.
Re:Havoc Pennington has the right idea by IGnatius+T+Foobar · 2003-09-15 02:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

In fact, if your parents don't call you already, even with their Windows questions, you must suck. Or be a bad child.

Or perhaps just someone with enough guts to put a foot down.

I finally got so sick and tired of doing tech support for family and friends that a couple of years ago I simply declared to them all, no more computer help for Microsoft products. I don't get paid for tech support, and Bill has too much money, so go bug him instead.

There was one person with a clue. My mother-in-law switched to Linux. I installed it for her and she finds it a pleasure to use compared to the constantly broken dozebox she sits in front of at work. It never has any significant problems, and when she does have the occasional question or concern it's a reasonable one that I can help her with.

Would she be able to compile a kernel? Shut up idiot, that's a stupid question. She doesn't have to. She turns it on and It Just Works (tm). And when the latest dozeworm comes wriggling across the wires, I don't have to drive 100 miles to her house to patch things up, because, like my own computers, hers is immune.

So yes, it's doable, and no, it doesn't mean you're a terrible friend or relative. Friends don't let friends use broken Microsoft products. And for that matter, true friends and family members don't try to press each other into involuntary servitude doing tech support.

--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Re:Havoc Pennington has the right idea by DarkSarin · 2003-09-15 02:25 · Score: 1

NAH, my mom doesn't use a computer. In fact, all jokes aside, she probably would be more comfortable with an abacus than a calculator. Now, my brothers do ask for advice, but its usually something beyond my skill (what do you do when a laptop won't even post). Oh, well.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:Havoc Pennington has the right idea by ccp · 2003-09-15 02:30 · Score: 1

I'll give you a real-life counter example: myself.

I didn't know a thing about Linux,so:

1. Installed Mandrake Download Edition, duall booting with Win98.

2. Autodetected everything, including cable internet.

3. NEVER had a problem.

4. Two weeks ago: OFF went the Windows partition.

5. Reinstalled, whole disk now.

6 Still no problems.

7. Profit?

Cheers,
Re:Havoc Pennington has the right idea by MikeBabcock · 2003-09-15 03:29 · Score: 1

My mother calls with problems ... I want to install Linux on her computer and not give her the root password because I'm evil though.

The only problem is that she has a digital camera that isn't supported by gphoto2 yet. Once it is, I'm making her switch.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:Havoc Pennington has the right idea by frater_corvus · 2003-09-15 05:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Things like this are great for Linux penetration, 'cause when someone rings their ISP saying "My computer won't start up properly, it states that ntoskrnl is missing, and I don't have the CD or windows key", rather than saying "too bad call back when you have the CD", the ISP support staff can prod these "Mom & Dad" users in the direction of Linux.

Not to nitpick, but if someone called about ntoskrnl missing, (s)he would probably be redirected to their OEM or Microsoft to get that fixed. ISPs don't mess with installation problems.

Standardising (across distros) things like the location of the pppd configuration would allow (again, for the sake of this example) ISPs to provide quick training to staff on how to support Linux users ... Not possible when the ISPs position is that Linux can't be supported and staff who try are wasting company time.

Standardization would have been a huge help back when I worked with ISPs. However, at the ISPs I worked at, my previous co-workers had initiative.

At Mindspring, most of the help was located on a webserver, complete with links and images to simulate buttons and interfaces. They could "simulate" any version of Windows from 95 on ( since 3.11 wasn't supported ). This worked for Linux-based benefits: someone had created instructions on how to get PPP working with kppp and RH's ppp-config ( which I now forget the name of ) so a new user could connect to the dial-up servers. If you didn't have either, no worries, we could email ( if you had access via a friend ) or simply tell you the address for the PPP Howto.

At the other ISP I worked with, now shut down, Linux was supported by the NOC team. Since there was one present 24/7, any of the tech support folk could do their best ( most were Linux users ) at getting the customer online. Failing that, they'd call one of us, and we'd talk the customer through the process. Usually, by that point, it was less likely a PPP config error and more hardware related.
Re:Havoc Pennington has the right idea by Azghoul · 2003-09-15 06:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, I totally agree with what you're saying. Most of the time now I just say, "Sorry, I don't use windows any more..."

But the original "conversation" was some mom and dad talking to tech support about linux. If my relatives want to go for linux, then I'll be there to help (open-source community and all that :))
Re:Havoc Pennington has the right idea by Chester+K · 2003-09-15 07:06 · Score: 1

I finally got so sick and tired of doing tech support for family and friends that a couple of years ago I simply declared to them all, no more computer help for Microsoft products. I don't get paid for tech support, and Bill has too much money, so go bug him instead.

Fortunately for you that your parents never declared "No more parenting. We don't get paid to feed you."

--

NO CARRIER

Nope Linux!=Unix by linuxislandsucks · 2003-09-15 00:02 · Score: 1

stopp blurting the flase SCO linux is unix arguemnt..

OpenGroup did not certify linux as a unix implementation thus your cliam is flae..

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

Re:Nope Linux!=Unix by weorthe · 2003-09-15 05:42 · Score: 1

And if you do blurt some flase, please clean it up yourself.

--
cat * >> sig

OSNews, blah... by vsync64 · 2003-09-15 00:11 · Score: 4, Informative

While reading through the interview, I noticed such bizarre and nonsensical statements as:

Looking Red Hat's recent press releases and web site lately, it reveals a new, stronger effort to shift focus further into the Enterprise and leaving Red Hat Linux to the hands of the community for the home/desktop market while leaves a "hole" in the previous target of Red Hat at the "Corporate Desktop market".

At the end of the day, we have seen patents being so "duh, brain dead", that many have said that writing software is almost impossible anymore. What a solution for this issue OSS software should find, to ensure a future that is not striked by lawsuits left and right?

Once, you started a C++ wrapper for GTK+, but then the project got sterile.

Do you feel that Linux is replacing Unix slowly but steadily, or do they follow parallel and different directions in your opinion?

I said to myself, "This article must be by Eugenia Loli-Queru", looked to the byline, and lo and behold I was correct. The local rag is more respectable, which is saying a lot, considering that they routinely misspell the names of cities in front page headlines and such. Even JeffK makes more sense than Eugenia.

--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.

Re:OSNews, blah... by paranerd · 2003-09-15 01:18 · Score: 1

I typically avoid OSNews because of the poor quality of their writing, but this article hit a new low. After struggling to understand Eurenia's first question I switched to reading Pennington's answers only.
Re:OSNews, blah... by TrekCycling · 2003-09-15 02:36 · Score: 1

Yes, it would be a nice benefit if you could understand the question she was asking without having to reread it 4 times and include your own (sic) marks as you read it.

I hope they standardize. by anonymous+coword · 2003-09-15 00:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Gnome and KDE can't merge, but they can unify some of their interfaces. Here, in my opinion is what they need to do, which don't appear to be on freedesk yet.

Ditch the Foot/K-gear and replace it with a standard menu button, something like start but better.
Unify font/color configuartion. So when I choose green with arial size 12 on KDE my gtk programs comply too.
Common shortcuts. For example, to open a tab on Konqueror you have to press ctrl+shift+n while mozilla and freinds use ctrl+t, Konqueror should switch to ctrl+t!
Standards for icons/emblems/backgrounds
Unified help/control system (man and /etc don't count), we need to be using gconf&scrollkeeper!
STANDRARD BUTTON ORDER! THIS THE MOST IMPORTANT! And make it easy to switch. People usually say yes or no! Not no or yes in real life.

--
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!

Re:I hope they standardize. by noselasd · 2003-09-15 00:48 · Score: 1

www.freedesktop.org
Just remeber that standarization and unification like this does
not happen over night.
Re:I hope they standardize. by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · 2003-09-15 03:43 · Score: 1
- Menu button - Can't see the point, but would be the matter of exchanging an icon in KDE.
- Color/Fonts - works for me on KDE-3.2-alpha. GTK1+2 programs follow my KDE settings. (Also OOo and Motif programs...)
- Common shortcuts - This is just a configuration issue. Many things are standard. Konqueror uses CTRL+ALT+N instead of CTRL+T by default because KDE users of old want to open a terminal window in Konqueror with CTRL+T. Mozilla and Nautilus don't have this feature
- Standards for icons - Well there are adaptions of GNOME icons for KDE, I am sure the other way around can also be found.
- Unfied help/control - Only fools abandon configuration by text files for a registry. KsyCoCa and the excellent kconfig framework can do the same things as the much hyped gconf. Also check out the Kiosk mode features. Khelpbrowser already shows the contents of the scrollkeeper in KDE-3.2CVS.
- Standard button order - well this is easy to switch in KDE (see Redhat). Should default to MS style.
Result: KDE with minimal adaptation does what you demand, with minimal adaptation. MAybe you should try it out?
--
Moritz

Re:Bad article style by ultrabot · 2003-09-15 00:58 · Score: 1

Note, too, that most of the readers of tech-site interviews are not as discerning as you. They are looking for "news" or "answers" -- and quickly. No one browses OSNews in anticipation of savoring the linguistic bons mots of some proto-Hemingway.

Indeed. Q & A format is great, because it lets you absorb all the necessary information quickly, possibly skipping boring questions. Reading an interview where the interviewer tries to be creative, using phrases like "he said", is a drag.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak

Re:Cool name by IamTheRealMike · 2003-09-15 01:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually his real first name is Robert, Havoc is his middle name (iirc). Nope, I dunno why he flipped it ;)

??? /. Reader in a /. manner ??? by justsomebody · 2003-09-15 01:19 · Score: 1, Offtopic

It's really dissapointing to see that
30% is commenting on guys name.
30% is commenting on grammar mistakes
10% is commenting on wrong hyperlinks
20% is commenting if Linux is UNIX or not
9% are trolls
1% actualy managed to stay on topic

My best guess is that all /. people that:
always bitch on how clipboard doesn't work
lack of 3D Desktop drawing and translucency
lack of KD, GNOME, X11 cooperation
no default printer interface
etc.

don'teven nearly realise that:

Havoc is one o the leading people on freedesktop.org, which should provide KDE-GNOME cooperation,

freedesktop.org and Xouvert cooperation would solve more than people would wnat (standard SVG library, standard clipboard, 3D desktop, standard printer interface),

that Xouvert should be fully transpaent to XFree, so exchange would be a piece of cake

By the way, he said one truly correct thing:
eople bitchin' about over such things are not developrs that contribute to either project, mostly those ones are users who preffer one interface over the other

--
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition

Usability by jensend · 2003-09-15 01:20 · Score: 1

Havoc is an absolutely fantastic programmer. He's also, in my opinion, a spectacularly bad usability "expert". Ever since he got on his usability kick, the stuff he's programmed has become less and less usable in many respects.

3. In the past (pre-SCO), Red Hat has admitted tha by smittyoneeach · 2003-09-15 01:40 · Score: 1

3. In the past (pre-SCO), Red Hat has admitted that was growing awry of patent issues

Looks like your spelling checker has a case of sexylaid, Eugenia...

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Re:Bad article style by ccp · 2003-09-15 02:40 · Score: 1

Agreed. Being spared from the interviewer's musings is a feature, not a bug.

Cheers,

RedHate (sic) by metamatic · 2003-09-15 02:51 · Score: 1

I swear, if Redhat ever actually gets into the black, I'm switching to Apple, stat. Fuck market share--I want something where nobody will bother me with free tech support requests.

My idea of tech support for RedHat users is telling them to install a distribution that doesn't completely suck for desktop use. If they insist on something RPM-based, they should at least use Mandrake.

The only sensible place for RedHat is business servers, multiprocessor RAID systems in big black boxes. I use it for that. Only for that. And it's still painful.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Plan 9, the spirit of... Amiga? Windows 2.0? by metamatic · 2003-09-15 02:54 · Score: 1, Flamebait

1986 called, they want their screen shot back.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Re:Plan 9, the spirit of... Amiga? Windows 2.0? by DrSkwid · 2003-09-15 05:02 · Score: 1

oh, never mind

you just don't get it

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Plan 9, the spirit of... Amiga? Windows 2.0? by metamatic · 2003-09-15 11:08 · Score: 1

Oh, I get it. It has "inner beauty".

Which is supposed to be a reasonable excuse for ignoring 20 years of user interface development and usability studies.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Re:I agree! by Capt.+Mubbers · 2003-09-15 02:54 · Score: 1

Care to give us any examples?

--
"Watch the skies, keep watching the skies"

Re:Nautilus now fucked harder by BohKnower · 2003-09-15 04:50 · Score: 1

It looks a good idea, this with storage FS can bring Linux to the Home Desktop.

CTRL+Shift+T for open terminal tab by sebol · 2003-09-15 05:12 · Score: 1

Common shortcuts - This is just a configuration issue. Many things are standard. Konqueror uses CTRL+ALT+N instead of CTRL+T by default because KDE users of old want to open a terminal window in Konqueror with CTRL+T. Mozilla and Nautilus don't have this feature

CTRL+Shift+T is open new terminal tab in gnome-terminal
i think konq should implement ctrl+shift+t to open terminal in konq

by doing this we can easily set people mindset

CTRL+T = open new browsing Tab
CTRL+SHIFT+T == open new terminal tab,

--
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)

why that little -- by Paul+d'Aoust · 2003-09-15 05:54 · Score: 1

Havoc is wearing my favourite shirt! how on earth did he get it?!? I don't remember saying he could use it, but that's ol' Havoc... always taking my clothes without asking.

Foundationless name-dropping aside, I'm excited to watch the directions the free desktop is taking. I tried using GNOME 2.2, and wasn't completely impressed with it (eventually moved over to KDE), but this new version looks like a serious contender in terms of power and ease-of-use to both KDE and, in my eyes, Windows XP.

Makes me really want to figure out how I borked up my Gentoo install so I can start using Linux again. oh boy!

--
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.

OSS/FS must gain desktop market share, or die. by dwheeler · 2003-09-15 08:56 · Score: 1

Open source software / Free Software (OSS/FS) must gain market share on the desktop, or it may die.

Many organizations are, for various reasons, pursuing their own policies that will try to make sure that OSS/FS programs/systems can't be used. It's reasonable to presume that Microsoft will want to modify its operating systems and applications to ensure that nothing can interoperate with them. Many organizations want to patent-squat on clearly obvious "inventions". Many are paying legislatures to rewrite laws to give them control over markets, to the detriment of OSS/FS. For example, look at the patent lawyers who are trying to get the European Union to permit software patents - economic studies show it's a bad idea, and most practitioners think it's a bad idea, but it certainly would enrich the patent lawyers. If those pressures are allowed to continue unopposed, OSS/FS systems won't be able to do many important functions, and eventually they will not be useful for any useful function. Governments wield great power, and the mechanisms they create (like software patents) can certainly interfere with or inhibit otherwise useful technology.

OSS/FS programs have a strong share today on the server. But if they never gain hold on the desktop, that won't matter much. The owners of desktops will modify their systems so that only their desktops can view important content (buying the content, if necessary, to ensure customer lock-in). Imagine if Internet Explorer always loaded Apache sites at 1/10 the speed - or simply didn't load it at all - and the vendor could get away with it because it was essentially illegal to use another browser that had necessary user functions.

If it becomes essentially impossible or illegal to use OSS/FS, it will quickly lose all developers and completely die. There's little evidence that OSS/FS projects will generate the necessary capital to buy off these forces directly.

The only real defense against such tactics is if OSS/FS gains market share on the desktop. If it's on enough desktops, there will be many people (users AND developers) who will want to make sure there are no artificial barriers to its use. The number of servers is small; the number of desktops is huge, and any democracy will start taking notice if many desktop users are unhappy. Legislatures will be less interested in writing laws that tilt against OSS/FS; content providers will be less interested in tools that exclude users of OSS/FS; hardware vendors will be more interested in doing what it takes to get support by OSS/FS operating systems.

Thankfully, there are lots of signs that OSS/FS is becoming competitive on the desktop. Having an alternative is in the interest of a lot of users, and a lot of computer companies would like to have alternatives too. Once the desktop becomes competitive, I think we (as consumers) can expect to see a lot of good things. OSS/FS doesn't even have to even gain dominant share to have a positive effect - just enough market share to create competition.

I love competition, because honest competition does wonderful things for the consumer. I have hopes we're seeing the beginning of a real competition.

If you want to be allowed to develop OSS/FS programs tomorrow, you should root for a competitive market share for OSS/FS applications and operating systems on the desktop.

--
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)

Puritan names are cooler by bfinuc · 2003-09-15 09:48 · Score: 1

http://www.gaminggeeks.org/Resources/KateMonk/Engl and-Medieval/Puritan.htm

--
I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.

Re:Cool name by dubiousdave · 2003-09-15 10:25 · Score: 1

I believe he says that everyone always called him Havoc, rather than Robert. It wasn't a conscious choice on his part. He also says it has no special meaning and no cool story; it just shows that his parents are weird.

--
Thank you. Drive through.

Scary waters by Brandybuck · 2003-09-15 12:22 · Score: 1

If we can negotiate the scary political waters, I'd like to see the various X projects, freedesktop.org, and the desktop environments and applications work together on a single base desktop platform project.

Gee, talk about scary waters indeed! Since Havoc is a Redhat guy, I'm wondering if he means that Redhat should be the standard desktop platform. What does that do to SuSE and Mandrake? Heck, what does it do to non-Linux platforms?

Right now Gnome and KDE run on Solaris, AIX, *BSD, IRIX, etc. Not just Linux. Not just Redhat. Gnome and KDE run an systems that Havoc has absolutely no control over, and never ever will.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

lol, you get funnier by DrSkwid · 2003-09-15 12:32 · Score: 1

you wouldn't know usability if it fucked you in the ass

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

Re:lol, you get funnier by metamatic · 2003-09-15 13:56 · Score: 1

Yeah, and judging from your buying the "milk is poison" tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, you wouldn't recognize reality if it rubbed itself up against your face spraying reality musk.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

shut up, god spawn by DrSkwid · 2003-09-15 21:34 · Score: 1

Looks like they didn't teach you how to flame when you were in choir school.

Dismissing something out of hand from a screenshot and saying it isn't usable makes you look like an idiot, even more than your picture does.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

Slashdot Mirror

Interview with Havoc Pennington of Red Hat

115 of 185 comments (clear)