Slashdot Mirror


Novell to Help Port Applications to Linux

An anonymous reader writes "eWeek is reporting that: "Novell announced the program at its European BrainShare 2004 tradeshow in Barcelona, Spain." "Under the initiative, leading software and hardware vendors, including Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM, Intel Corp., Oracle Corp. and Scali Inc. will work with Novell help their software partners deploy their platforms and solutions on SUSE Linux, according to Novell Inc."

115 of 610 comments (clear)

  1. Good news for Suse... by tcopeland · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...and to help more people get a crack at running Suse, if you've got some spare bandwidth, fire up a BitTorrent client and head over to The Linux Mirror Project and help mirror the Suse torrent.

    The tracker shows lots of leechers for that distro... if you can, hop in and help out!

    1. Re:Good news for Suse... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      Splitting them up, I think. This is a good idea since TLM is still up if the Fedora tracker gets overwhelmed... but of course, they don't share peers, then.

      Is it possible for trackers to share peer lists? Hm. Seems like it would work, since the pieces hash would be the same... hmmm...

    2. Re:Good news for Suse... by L7_ · · Score: 1

      There was some "Linux Professional" link posted here like 3 months ago to the Novell page where you could give them your name and address and they would send you a SuSE CD install package (3 CDs) for free. No need for downloading the ISOs.

      Of course, I didn't save the link nor am I able to find it. :-(

    3. Re:Good news for Suse... by Kyro · · Score: 1

      you mean this link? http://www.novell.com/community/linux/order.php i got my set a few months ago.

      --
      save the GNUs!
    4. Re:Good news for Suse... by GCP · · Score: 1

      Notice that that link contains only the announcement that they aren't accepting any further orders. If you want to try Suse, you pay in money and time or in inconvenience.

      With Red Hat it was easy to create some installer CDs of the latest and have them around in case the urge to install it on some machine struck me. It often did, both at home and at work. If that machine wasn't connected to the Net or whatever, it didn't matter. I had real, local installation discs.

      Suse wants to make installation less convenient, if you want the "real" version. Pay money, wait for discs, wonder what version they'll be and how long they'll be current before I have to order and wait again, or install by FTP, which sounds error prone since it is installing its own OS and yet it can't even get the files to install unless it is already up and running some OS (would that include any old Windows already on the machine? Dunno, I'd have to research it) plus a working network connection, which is what you're trying to install....

      Each time I think that maybe I should give Suse a try, I run into this, decide that it's not worth the extra bother, and put it off again.... And the longer I go without switching to Suse, the less likely I am to ever do so.

      --
      "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    5. Re:Good news for Suse... by Builder · · Score: 1

      Which SuSE version is this ? Because apparantly SuSE aren't happy about their stuff being copied:

      http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie =U TF-8&threadm=qcMw%249AoBeSBJACh%40candt.demon.co.u k&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Duk.comp.os.linux%26ie%3DUTF-8 %26hl%3Den

    6. Re:Good news for Suse... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Which SuSE version is this ?

      9.1-personal

      > SuSE aren't happy about their stuff being copied

      Hm. Maybe that doesn't apply to the 'personal' version? Guess the TLM folks would know about that...

  2. Who could use some help by DaveInAustin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they could help MS port office.

    --
    --- http://davidnehme.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Who could use some help by rainman_bc · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mean like Crossover Office?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Who could use some help by SunPin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Screw Office. Everyone uses office for one reason: The Microsoft marketing department.

      Excel, Powerpoint, Publisher and Access--especially Access--are not valid reasons for parting with your money.

      Microsoft represents everything wrong about the world consumers have to deal with. Since there's no profit in a _solved_ problem and a _stable_ solution, everything in this country is built to break.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    3. Re:Who could use some help by sloanster · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could help MS port office.

      Bad idea for a couple of reasons, off the top of my head -

      #1, ms will fight tooth and nail against the idea of giving ms office users more choice of OS on which to run ms office since obviously, some will choose an OS other than ms windows.

      #2, the ms office port would divert resources from the excellent alternatives such as open office.

      Rather than rushing in to prop up the faltering ms office monopoly, we should be support the increasingly capable ms office alternatives, encouraging interoperability via document and file format standards, not vendor lock in.

    4. Re:Who could use some help by kisielk · · Score: 2, Informative

      We use Office because all our company's documents, dating back years and years are all made in office. It would be time consuming and usually not very good looking to convert them to another format. Also most documents we receive from customers and partners is also in Office format, don't want to convert back between different formats all the time. No, I don't like this one bit, but so far nobody has an adequate solution.

    5. Re:Who could use some help by SunPin · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not the whole story. Theoretically--and at one time enthusiastically touted by Microsoft--you should be able to send all your documents into XML and open them anywhere without losing any formatting. Microsoft doesn't support anything open (sources or standards) when it interferes with their bottom line. That should be motivation enough to begin the breakup with Microsoft. It won't happen overnight but it will happen if you want it to.

      I don't mind Windows XP. My problems with Microsoft surround their garbage tie-in designed to limit choices, stifle innovation and suck the life out of anyone that they remotely identify as a competitor.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    6. Re:Who could use some help by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about a good working alternative to Outlook. Does Ximian natively do the e-mail and calendaring, and keep the message store on the exchange server?

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    7. Re:Who could use some help by peawee03 · · Score: 1

      Better yet, does it work on systems that don't use complex pre-compiled binary packages (Slackware, for example)

      --
      I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.
    8. Re:Who could use some help by timmyf2371 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I almost agree with Access, but in honesty it's perfect for those small database-enabled functions I require without having to spend ages setting up the relevant database and access pages using PHP/MySQL (which I use for larger database projects.

      Now, let's look at Excel - Excel in my opinion is a fantastic application. It's great for calculations, supports copy and paste from other applications with figures etc, and is a really handy application to have around - possibly even more useful that Word itsself.

      Powerpoint is the bain of my existance. Suffice it to say, it empowers PHBs with capabilities to create huge, annoying, awful-looking documents with information which could be distributed in a two-line email.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    9. Re:Who could use some help by killjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Welcome to vendor lock. That's exactly the way MS wanted it to be. Congratulations you are unable to switch to a lower cost alternative!.

      It's like those monkey traps you hear about. You know where you make a hole in the box just big enough for the monkey to put his hand in and grab a fist full of peanuts. The problem is that once the fist is full of peanuts the monkey can't get his hand out. So he sits there until the hunter comes by, trapped by his unwillingness to let go a handful of peanuts.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    10. Re:Who could use some help by mvdw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't believe that this is necessarily a valid argument anymore. Abiword will open Word documents, Gnumeric will open excel documents, and openoffice will of course open both. You may lose some formatting and/or images, but many files will open correctly in these free softwares. You can even convert your word documents using wvWare, another free piece of software.

      Do you have to edit them, or are they read-only? If they are read-only, you might want to try "wvPDF" and a small script (for f in find / -name \*.doc ; do wvPDF $f $(basename $f .doc).pdf ; done)

      Note the script is not tested, but it shouldn't do anything *too* bad to your originals...

      Alternatively, if you would like to edit the files later, try wvLatex (then edit using Lyx later), wvDVI, wvAbw (edit using abiword), wvRTF (edit using openoffice), or to just extract the text use wvText. Or you can do a combination of a number of them (generate the pdf and the RTF source, for example). No guarantees, YMMV, IANAL, etc etc etc, but for the 1/2 hour it take to get it all running, it may well be worth your time.

    11. Re:Who could use some help by phaetonic · · Score: 3, Informative
    12. Re:Who could use some help by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      no

    13. Re:Who could use some help by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      Screw Office. Everyone uses office for one reason: The Microsoft marketing department.

      Huh? That's not why I use it. Maybe you should speak for yourself rather than telling me why I use something.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    14. Re:Who could use some help by Micro$will · · Score: 1

      Screw Office, their first priority should be to port NWAdmin. ConsoleOne is too buggy, bloated, and clumsy, and why for love of Jeebus do they have to have their own JRE for it.

  3. saw this coming... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What, did you think that Novell threw all those millions of dollars at SuSE for fun? Oh no, SuSE is the core of the next NetWare.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    1. Re:saw this coming... by nocomment · · Score: 2

      I keep telling people that by this time next year Novell will rule the world. This is just another example of how that is going to happen.


      Novell, if you are reading this, fast user switching unkay? :-D I will switch from drake to you for that.

      --
      /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
      /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    2. Re:saw this coming... by jhoffoss · · Score: 4, Funny
      No, no, no. You have it all wrong.

      Linux will rule the world through Novell. Novell will be nothing but our puppet.

      <insert evil laugh here>

      --
      Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
    3. Re:saw this coming... by nocomment · · Score: 1

      I wish i had posted AC so I could mod you, hehehe

      --
      /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
      /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    4. Re:saw this coming... by once1er · · Score: 1

      I don't know what version of mandrake you're using, but KDE3.2 that comes with 10 has a pretty good "fast user switching" capability. Although, I actually did find it a little easier to use on SuSE, maybe there is a minor version difference in KDE I'm not aware of. But its totally good, you can lock your term and everything when you switch. The new gnome has it too, I think.

    5. Re:saw this coming... by winse · · Score: 1

      ummm Novell here.... you'll have to rewrite that in German please. Anyone that could even start to think about that is in Germany....unless you count the Ximian guys.... I guess they could get Gnome to do that for you, but then you could just run Gnome on any distrobution.

      --
      this sig is deprecated
    6. Re:saw this coming... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because of the GPL, it's not possible for there to be a "'Microsoft' of Linux." Microsoft dominates with proprietary and non-standards-compliant software, which can't happen with Linux because anyone can copy it.

      Yes, people can be upset when a poor technology <cough>RPM</cough> dominates, but they can't be forced to use it. The only possible issue is software patents as a lock-in mechanism, and I don't think anyone would put up with Novell trying use that -- they'd just switch. They'd have to already be locked in first.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:saw this coming... by intangible · · Score: 1

      gdmflexiserver
      Best program since checkinstall.

      "BAM!"

  4. I want my 8kb Space Invaders Please by JPyObjC+Dude · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they will help me port Space Invaders from my white Comodore Pet.

    Now if only I could find that tape...

    1. Re:I want my 8kb Space Invaders Please by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Check out MAME (www.mame.net). You can have the real thing.

    2. Re:I want my 8kb Space Invaders Please by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1
  5. color me n00b by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but arent linux apps supposed to work with all major distros? and if not, why?

    1. Re:color me n00b by robla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the major distros come with different:
      * versions of X Windows
      * versions of GNOME or KDE
      * versions of glibc
      * versions of the ABI
      * package management systems

      When you are distributing your software in source code form for developers to compile themselves, it's no big deal. When you are trying to release a binary that works in a supported way, it's a hassle.

      This hassle isn't limited to closed source software. For example, look how many download options Abiword has. Regardless of what "should" work, there's been enough hassles in the past that most folks want binaries tailored to their specific platform.

      Rob

    2. Re:color me n00b by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oracle RDBMS 10g installs and runs just fine under Debian Sarge despite Oracle only really wanting it to run on Suse and RHEL.

      Linux "fragmentation" is mostly hype.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:color me n00b by Lando+Griffin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...Linux "fragmentation" is mostly hype.

      Perhaps, but Oracle's decision to support their products on SuSE and RHEL most definitely is not hype. Good luck getting support if you insist on running on Sarge!

    4. Re:color me n00b by johnhennessy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I would have to agree - fragmentation is mostly hype. But there is one difference. Support. Fine, your latest XYZ product might run on Redhat and Debian but more than likely when you ring up tech. support with a problem on your Debian system you'll probably get a "not supported" reply.

      Which is possibly fine, imagine the costs a ISV would have to incur if they had to support every single OS/distribution out there. In one way, they are probably happy with the MS monopoly.

      On the other hand, this is more less the product of their thinking and business model for recent history. If tech. support people actually knew something about computers instead of just reading scripts then maybe supporting many platforms wouldn't be a hasstle. If programs were written using proper Software Engineering skills (no, VB does not count) then maybe applications would be portable in the first place.

      From what I can see, the only thing that distinguishes linux platforms would be the libc implementation or for hardware related software the version of kernel. If I missed something, let it rip, but more or less everything else can be provided as a shared object or compiled static as part of the install process.

      --
      [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    5. Re:color me n00b by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      >> Linux "fragmentation" is mostly hype.

      And as Flava Flav taught us: "Don't believe the hype"

    6. Re:color me n00b by sqlgeek · · Score: 1

      Oracle doesn't care what configuration you run their database on, however they're only willing to support a few. Can you really blame them? Imagine the support calls involved in diagnosing various problems on home-rolled Linux boxes. Ugh.

      Scott

    7. Re:color me n00b by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      This is simply not true. The 10G installation stops you if you are not running either SuSe Enterprise OR RedHat Enterprise or one more (can't remember).

      Heck even their fricking Internet Developer Suite checks now. Yes you can run something like white box linux and get around it, but the way I see it Novell is saying:
      "We want you to port your apps to SuSe Enterprise only".

      I like Oracle, and understand why they are doing but they should pick at least one or two more distros that are free (say like fedora, debian, or one of the low cost ones and support it.

      To say they can't would be incorrect they fully supported RedHat 7.1. The more I think about this the more angry I get with Oracle.... Even their development tools (Jdeveloper), written in Java will not install on anything but Enterprise versions of Linux. WTF!!!! It is a developer tool, not a freaking database!

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    8. Re:color me n00b by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Oracle Enterprise support costs 20% of your upfront licence costs. You pay this ANNUALLY.

      Compared to that, the cost of RHEL or Suse enterprise is a drop in the bucket.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  6. LSB? by cpn2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have not read the FA, but I do hope they port applications to the LSB rather than just to their distro.

    --
    All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be ... Dark side of the moon
    1. Re:LSB? by PhilipPeake · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I don't want to start any sort of flamewar on this, so just take this a my opinion FWIW:

      LSB is fine, and a worthwhile effort, BUT (you knew there was but coming, didn't you?) it is FAR from a complete standard for Linux. It just codifies what are prety much already consensus and de-facto opinions on standards already present in most versions of Linux.

      This is useful work, but by no means sufficient to develop against. LSB cound be more proactive and push standards where they are needed, but the push-back they would get from "the community" would be intense, and could end up devaluing the good work they currently do.

      Most of the Linux distros out there do aim for LSB conformance anyway. If they don't quite make it, its not by much, and if they don't try -- well, maybe you need to give your patronage to those that do.

      As far as I kno, SuSe are committed to following the LSB, so applications ported to it will naturally be LSB conformant ports - for as far as that takes them.

    2. Re:LSB? by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      Why should they? They're a for-profit-company, not a charity. It would be nice if they did, but they don't have to.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    3. Re:LSB? by cpn2000 · · Score: 1
      Not trying to troll or anything, but if coding your apps to the LSB does not gaurantee portability (across distros), what good is the LSB at all? I thought that the central idea behind the LSB was to promote a kind of 'write once, run on any (lsb compliant) distro' idea. But if it is not living upto that standard, how does it expect to garner any repect from app developers?

      Is this a problem with the LSB per se., or in the way in which distros are implementing it?

      Note, I am asking this simply out of my ignorance about the LSB, that anything else.

      --
      All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be ... Dark side of the moon
  7. Let's stop breaking Linux up. by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "But this is also aimed at Windows software vendors, Unix software vendors, or vendors who'd developed for other flavors of Linux but who'd like run on SUSE Linux, too," He said.

    I love the fact that Linux has the flexibility of having multiple flavors but I really think that making the flavors incompatible is a roadblock for wide acceptance.

    People who develop for Windows are going to look at Linux and say, "but if we want to reach everyone we have to deal with RedHat, SUSE, Foo, and DoubleFoo."

    Shouldn't companies that want to support Linux as a viable alternative be pushing for a standard to be followed?

    1. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why yes, we probably should.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by garcia · · Score: 1

      Yeah, LSB is great and all in theory but when a major Linux player isn't really doing much to advocate it I don't see what good it is going to do.

    3. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by jhoffoss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First, let's correct your previous statement. Novell and SuSE are one, and so there's not as much for a developer to struggle to conform to. Second, as was announced on /., the WSJ, and several other sources a few days ago, IBM, Novell, HP, and several other very major vendors all announced support of LSB-2. Whether they're posting placards and advertising everywhere or not, if I'm a developer for Linux tools, I'm going to code to LSB-2 spec, not to a platform (RH/SuSE/FC/LM/etc.)

      --
      Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
    4. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by Cheeko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the good things going for LSB is that HP, and IBM support it. Its in THEIR best interest to have a standards base because it makes their support job easier. While Suse or Redhat might only care about supporting their specific customers, each of them being different makes the support job tougher for major system vendors. My guess is that HP and IBM pressuring the linux companies will make them pretty compliant on the LSB front and force the linux vendors to differentiate on additional features that don't break the LSB.

    5. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I'm a bit of a Windows fan, so your mileage may vary.

      That said, you know, actually they're not that incompatible.

      I've ran for example WebSphere and Eclipse on SuSE, Gentoo, and a coleague installed them on RedHat too. My brother runs them on Mandrake. Binaries too, no recompiling needed. No problems there. I also don't recall having to get a different binary version of, say, OOo for different Linux flavours. It runs just as crappy on them all.

      It's not yet perfect, yes, but differences tend to be minor. E.g., where they put their scripts or some config files, or whether KDE and Gnome go into /opt or into /usr. Nothing that a desktop application really needs to know about.

      Linux still has compatibility problems of its own, in the form of the DLL hell. (Well, .so but same idea.) Each F/OSS app seems to want its very own version of some library, which in turns requires a bunch of other libraries to be in a whole other version than what you have on the system.

      But that's hardly something that has to do with distro fragmentation. You're just as likely to run into that problem on any distro.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by baggins2002 · · Score: 1

      That's why there is linuxbase.org.

    7. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by Rex+Code · · Score: 1

      That's why there is linuxbase.org.

      Oh yeah, an ass-ugly extra runtime environment that costs $3000 to claim compliance with is going to solve everything.

      Just try going to http://linuxbase.org and you'll see what a great plan they have.

    8. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes.

      People who develop for Windows are going to look at Linux and say, "but if we want to reach everyone we have to deal with RedHat, SUSE, Foo, and DoubleFoo."

      Mostly it tends to be the Foo and DoubleFoo distros that break compatibility. This is for two main reasons.

      "Boutique" Linux distros are developed are often developed by fanatics who simply don't care if "Application X" works on their distro, because obviously, "Application X" is crap, and possibly not licensed according to their politics. These distros are not for the "mainstream" and will probably fade away quickly.

      Other "Boutique" distros have some very specific uses in mind, such as those that require ultra-stability or ultra-security. I was going to say like dedicated web servers, but I think the *BSDs have that sewn up. With these very narrow focuses, wide compatibility is rarely an issue.

      I know people are going to flame me for writing this, but in The Enterprise, the only real Linux players right now are Novell/SuSE and RedHat. A lot of this has to do with vender support, which distros such as Gentoo/Debian/Slackware and so on do not have.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    9. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by garcia · · Score: 1

      Why didn't the article say that they were going to conform to the LSB? They mentioned specifically that they were looking for people to develop for SuSE Linux.

    10. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Because the press release was written by a marketdroid, not a hacker?

    11. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative
      You're just as likely to run into that problem on any distro.
      No, you're not -- it's a package management issue, and different distros have different package management. I've never run into "library hell" with Gentoo, because there's a single repository, and so everything it tested to work together. I presume Debian and BSD would work equally well. God help you if you're using Red Hat or something, though.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by Trelane · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, an ass-ugly extra runtime environment that costs $3000 to claim compliance with is going to solve everything.


      And claiming compliance with Windows (i.e. the logo; same as with LSB) costs you what? Anybody?

      Bueller?
      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    13. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by Rex+Code · · Score: 1

      And claiming compliance with Windows (i.e. the logo; same as with LSB) costs you what? Anybody?

      Your soul.

    14. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Point well taken, if you actually recompile everything under Gentoo, and occasionally recompile everything for a new library or framework, you don't have compatibility problems. Unfortunately:

      A. Not everything is available as source code. E.g., God help you if you want WebSphere's sources and you're not working in the WebSphere team at IBM.

      B. Compiling everything is not always an economical or comfortable solution. While, again, I'll admit that it fixes pretty much any compatibility issues, a full recompile can take _days_ on top of the line computers. Doubly so on some old 2.0 GHz P4 (or less) people still have around at home or at the office.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    15. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Re. A: I mentioned Gentoo because that's where my personal experience is. You could use Debian instead, and not have to recompile. The point is that ideally, you want all your software tested together, and a central repository is a good way to do that.

      Re. B: Compiling isn't that bad, as long as you stay away from the Windows or Red Hat style "system version/release" mentality -- realize that the system is not a monolithic unit, and it doesn't all change at once. So upgrade often, and only a few packages will change at a time.

      Also, businesses typically have one thing going for them: volume. When you have 30 identical PCs, you can run DistCC on them and compile things really quickly. On top of that, they're identical! So compile it once and then copy it to the rest!

      Finally, I don't know where you get this idea that a 2.0GHz P4 is "old" -- I've run Gentoo on 4 different computers, and the newest is an Athlon XP 2100+. The others are a 900MHz C3, a 500Mhz Athlon, and a 233MHz Pentium MMX, and I haven't had a problem with compiling on any of them. It might take a while, sometimes, but you can use the system while it goes!

      I've since retired the 233Mhz MMX, beacuse it couldn't comfortably run X and Firefox at the same time. Its replacement is an iBook, which will be running Gentoo/OSX as soon as it's stable -- not for the "funroll loops," but for the ease installing and maintainability.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by theblkadder · · Score: 1

      SUSE has been a long time supporter of and contributor to the LSB effort, and as far as I know, will continue to be. No pressure from our friends at IBM or HP is necessary. - A SUSE (err Novell) employee...

      --
      Earth is a single point of failure.
    17. Re:Let's stop breaking Linux up. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      You do have the same problem, it just manifests itself in a different way. It just shows up as having to use old software, or broken packages.

      Compiling all your software isn't really a useful solution. How many Gentoo users compile not only gnome-terminal themselves, but the entirety of OpenOffice (a 24 hour compile on some systems)? It doesn't really scale. Good support for binaries is really essential.

  8. Three words... by chill · · Score: 2, Funny

    Developers, developers, developers!

    The monkey-boy dance is left up to the end user.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Three words... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Linxoupers! Linxoupers!! Linxoupers!!!! Linxoupers!!!! Linxoupers!!!!! Linxoupers!!!!!! Linxoupers!!!!!!!

      (catches breath...)

      Oh, wait, monkeyboy/man meant.. Developers! Developers!! Developers!!!..., hehehe

      Well, maybe we'll FINALLY see IBM/Lotus ship some sendable code to Novell? Imagine IBM selling off or dual-licensing some "SmartOpenSuite" and getting IBM AND Novell a slew more customers.

      I have things in SmartSuite that, thanks to Word Pro, 1-2-3 and ESPECIALLY Lotus Approach, I simply, utterly, and infuriatingly CAN NOT do in Star Office, nor in OpenOffice.org. Certainly not nearly as easily as I, a non-developer, can do in SmartSuite.

      If any of you developers have not seen Lotus Approach, please hook up with your DB friends and help figure a way for IBM to get past the legal morass that seems to be in the way of us having a Dual-License/F/LOSS version of SmartSuite. IBM should do for SmartSuite what OpenOffice is to Sun.

      This also could pit IBM in stark constrast to Sun, in light of Sun's arrangements with microscroft (lower-casing/deprecation of mshaft's name intentional/perpetual in my writings...). That is, assuming there are non key, well-placed abettors of microshoft emplaced in IBM (something I think about and fear to be true...)

      Thanks in advance, IBM/Lotus. Let the Olympian Gold Code and Bugfests of SmartSuite begin!

      David Syes

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  9. The enemy of my enemy ... by YetAnotherName · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... is my friend, as the old saying goes.

    And so long as they keep the Unix trademark from SCO with the force of a thousand lawyers with lasers strapped to their heads, they're fine by me.

    1. Re:The enemy of my enemy ... by legirons · · Score: 1

      "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as the old saying goes."

      Yeah, but when all your enemies are fighting amongst themselves, why bother?

  10. note it says suse linux by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    not all linux. Dont get this confused with open sourcing everything.

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:note it says suse linux by ahillen · · Score: 1

      not all linux. Dont get this confused with open sourcing everything.

      Well, even if they wouldn't have been specific about a Linux distribution, the article only talks about 'porting' applications, not 'open sourcing' applications.

      And of course Novell is only going to support companies if the final product runs officially on SuSE Linux (in the sense of an officially supported platform). That does not mean that it only runs on SuSE Linux...

  11. Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There is no need for BSD-from-scratch disto.

    1: All the BSDs are entirely different operating systems, which are lumped into one category becuase of their roots.
    2: Since no extra bullshit is thrown in like linux, there is less need for reworking the base.
    3: BSD is not obscure in the least, it is rather alive and florishing.

    BTW you forgot to mention Solaris, which has it's roots in BSD too. ckj

    1. Re:Divide and conquer by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. All the BSDs are not entirely different, and commonly share code back and forth amongst them.
      2. There's plenty of extra bullshit, but it's in ports where it belongs.
      3. BSD is obscure when it comes to the desktop, but then so is Linux.
      4. Solaris does not have its roots in BSD exactly:
        1. Solaris is SunOS plus Openwindows.
        2. Openwindows has traditionally meant Sun's X11 plus the openlook environment - which AFAIK still comes with the system.
      5. Solaris 1.x contains SunOS 4.x, which is based on BSD.
      6. Solaris 2.x contains SunOS 5.x, which is based on System V. If you choose to install the proper packages you get a bunch of BSD binaries in /usr/ucb or something like that.

      SunOS4 and SunOS5 are totally different and mostly separate operating systems.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Divide and conquer by tyrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      > 1. All the BSDs are not entirely different, and
      > commonly share code back and forth amongst them.

      And some of it is incompatable with latest GNU programs. GNU is a flagman of Unix development, why else?

      > 2. There's plenty of extra bullshit, but it's
      > in ports where it belongs.

      Ports exist because of GNU/BSD incomatability. You can't just download a GNU source and build it.

      > 3. BSD is obscure when it comes to the desktop,
      > but then so is Linux.

      Linux is GNU compatable. It has well-developed package managers. This makes it much less obscure

      > 4. Solaris does not have its roots in BSD
      > exactly:
      > 1. Solaris is SunOS plus Openwindows.
      > 1. Openwindows has traditionally
      > meant Sun's X11 plus the openlook environment -
      > which AFAIK still comes with the system.

      Solaris is what is called SVR4 which was a big standard back when ATT, Sun, HP, Digital and SGI got together to develop modern enterprise platform.

      > 2. Solaris 1.x contains SunOS 4.x, which is based on BSD.

      The was SunOS 4.x and there was Solaris 2. Solaris 1 was "invented" later.

      > 3. Solaris 2.x contains SunOS 5.x, which
      >is based on System V. If you choose to install the
      >proper packages you get a bunch of BSD binaries in
      >/usr/ucb or something like that.

      It is a separate compatability package.

      > SunOS4 and SunOS5 are totally different and mostly separate operating systems.

      Linux got many ideas from Solaris. Package managers, ELF binaries, etc, etc, etc. In my view Linux is a successor of Solaris and Linux gets all the credit for sparking Unix revolution.
      All Unixes should be under one banner because they all came from one that progressed by trial and error. May the best ideas win and be shared across all branches.

    3. Re:Divide and conquer by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Here, let's make another list. When you're allowed to use style sheets lists are one of the best things about HTML, but they're not bad even in their most classic of implementations, as we find them here on slashdot.

      1. Linux is definitely the primary platform of development for your average free/open software of the day. No argument there. However, the largest projects aim for compatibility and the most important of the smaller projects (and lots of trivial software) is ported to assorted BSDs. As more reliable cross-platform frameworks are created, and some of them gain widespread acceptance, the portability of Unix software will only improve.
      2. Most of the time I don't want to just get a source and build it anyway. It seems I frequently find myself applying patches to just about anything I maintain myself. I happen to use gentoo and you may notice that many if not most of the high-profile packages in portage have numerous patches applied to them.
      3. ports (and its cousins) are pretty well-developed, if you want to build from source, which is what we were just discussing.
      4. Yes quite, Solaris 2.x is based on System V, Release 4. Or, I should say, was, because it's taken on quite a life of its own. Nonetheless there are three ways more or less - the SysV way, the BSD way, and the Linux way, which is basically the same as the GNU way in terms of userland.
      5. Regardless of Solaris 1.x being invented later - yes, I remember the goofy packaging before and after the event - The fact is that Solaris 1.x is SunOS4 and Solaris 2.x is SunOS5. People like to talk about Solaris and SunOS5 as if they meant the same thing and they do not. I don't mind when people say Solaris 2, but when they say Solaris, I find it to be goofy. Computers are precise, right? Be precise. SunOS deserves as much attention without a windowing environment as with one. I used to have a 4/260 running 4.1.3_u1. Before that it was a 3/260 and I ran 4.1.1 and I had to patch in DNS. Later, I did a bit of Solaris 2.4 and 2.5 administration - so I do have a solid appreciation for the variation between SunOS versions :P

      Linux is a mishmash of all the best things from all the successful Unixes. Filesystems have come in from everywhere, many concepts came from Solaris, with a development model from BSD... Oh it's a beautiful thing. And of course, whatever you think of it, you must give due credit to the GPL.

      I do believe in calling all of these operating systems Unix, as opposed to UNIX necessarily (though obviously those are Unix as well) because they are clearly put together the same way. That goes for DomainOS, IDRIX, AIX, whatever goofy-looking system we're talking about. And I don't believe that any Unixes stand alone, regardless of their intent - in fact that's contrary to the whole intent of Unix, really.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. logical next step after acquisition of SuSE by nomad63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somehow, someway, Novell needs to make money out of the deal. By basically giving away their product, it is not likely to happen anytime soon. But if they add an arsenal of software which is certified to run on Linux platform, the landscape drastically changes and these changes will favor Novell.

    A big round of applause for this novel (pun intended) idea of Novell...

    --

    __________
    The more I know people, the more I love animals
    1. Re:logical next step after acquisition of SuSE by laupark · · Score: 1

      Umm, I believe they already are...
      For Q1 2004
      http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArt icle.j html?articleID=20900628
      for Q2 2004
      http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/netware/ 2004/0 823nw2.html?fsrc=rss-novell

    2. Re:logical next step after acquisition of SuSE by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Novell has NDS, it's probably the best system for managing huge networks and it runs on linux. If you are thinking about converting over to linux then they can give you linux for free and sell you NDS (and groupwise too while they are at it).

      --
      evil is as evil does
  13. uh oh... groupwise? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    I hope this doesn't include groupwise *shudder*

    The client has to be the worst, ugliest and clunkiest I have ever had the misfortune to use...

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:uh oh... groupwise? by cpthowdy · · Score: 1

      Have you used the client from GW 6.5? It's been massively overhauled since 5.x and 6.0...

    2. Re:uh oh... groupwise? by Reducer2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you used it lately? I resembles Outlook now.
      There are already server and clients of GroupWise 6.5 available for Linux. We have GroupWise as our e-mail system here and wouldn't even think about running anything else.

      --
      When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
    3. Re:uh oh... groupwise? by Salo2112 · · Score: 1

      You should take a look at Loathsome Notes.

    4. Re:uh oh... groupwise? by smoking2000 · · Score: 1

      Although there is a GroupWise client for Linux, it is not the exact same client as the one on Windows.

      The cross-platform client doesn't support the Document Management features of GroupWise. They say they're working on it though.

      Some NNLS components (iPrint for instance) and other Linux products of Novell have these same issues. Only fully functional on Windows at this moment.

      I can't wait for the changelog of the next version of NNLS etc, to see if (some of) these issues are fixed.

    5. Re:uh oh... groupwise? by i2878 · · Score: 1
      Since Linux is quickly becoming the O/S of choice (above NetWare - which is quicly becoming depreciated) for Novell, yes, you'll see everything.

      Actually, the 6.5 client (already mentioned) - although not quite as refined as the Windows client - is pretty nice. Use it all the time.

      --
      legal. fun. profitable. pick two.
    6. Re:uh oh... groupwise? by jrcamp · · Score: 1

      Why would they port Groupwise when they have Evolution? They both have the same goal and Evolution can already integrate with Groupwise servers. That was one of the big reasons to buy Ximian.

  14. Who's missing here? by aquabat · · Score: 1

    No mention of Sun Microsystems in that list, hehe...

    --
    A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
  15. The Linux Cartel by SunPin · · Score: 1

    Yeah, LSB is great and all in theory but when a major Linux player isn't really doing much to advocate it I don't see what good it is going to do.

    That's the problem with cartels (OPEC, NCAA, etc.)

    They work only when everyone feels like cooperating. They fail in dramatic fashion when one or more members smells money.

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  16. Their 'Software Partners?' by Future+Linux-Guru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >>"Under the initiative, leading software and hardware vendors, including Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM, Intel Corp., Oracle Corp. and Scali Inc. will work with Novell help their software partners deploy their platforms and solutions on SUSE Linux, according to Novell Inc."

    What partners?

    It was in the application space that Novell lost it's market and mindshare to Microsoft.

    1. Re:Their 'Software Partners?' by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      PeopleSoft , vmware, HP, Trustix , MySQL , SAFLINK , FTI , Constant Data , SurfControl , Software AG , Agnitum , Volante , JBoss , FalconStor , Intershop, Tarantella, Software AG and Bull ,
      etc..., etc..., etc...

      Google is your friend: 703,000 for novell software partner. (0.58 seconds)

  17. Damn is this big red 'N' ugly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sorry, but this is really the ugliest and most irritating topic logo. Does it have to be that aggressive shade of red? It hurts my eyes!

    1. Re:Damn is this big red 'N' ugly! by discogravy · · Score: 1
      and now you know why Novell was hated on for so long. Actually, if you used Windows+Novell (which you kinda needed to before AD, if you wanted any kind of sanity vis-a-vis networking and shares and especially granular control of rights) then the hatred goes more to MS: they did everything they could to make Novell as slow and shitty as possible on Windows (so as to make AD seem better in comparison.)

      Instead of, you know, making their product better. Novell's mistake was setting themselves up to get the shaft; but microsoft were the ones fucking everything up.

  18. Trend? by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Makes me wonder if Linux is going to stratify into corporate and home user flavors? SUSE and RedHat for the office. And the raft of others for home users.

    I don't think it's bad either way, just curious as to how it's going to shake out. Any Linux usage is good in my book. More apps available is very good. More alternatives to the bloated wares of Castle Redmondore, priceless.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  19. How about a program that "helps" hardware vendors by Featureless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...release specs and/or open-source device drivers, and become "Linux compliant"?

    I guess if the big companies want to lend a hand, that'd be my suggestion.

    Let's be serious, drivers are one of the biggest issues, crossing all of the common uses of Linux. Why are we, in 2004, still stuck in the 1994 mentality, still begging most hardware manufacturers for specs and open drivers, and still reverse-engineering? I mean, it's probably fair to say Linux is over the hump in terms of name recognition at this point.

    Sure, it's a lot better than it was, but our mindshare in the PC hardware world is abyssmal compared to what it should be. Even hardware vendors that "support" us still often do so with binary drivers; often shitty, scary ones that never get rev'd.

    Can the myth that closed-source drivers, or secret specs, are somehow good for a hardware business still be thriving in 2004? Is it really that much more important than the sales you miss out on when your competitors embrace Linux before you do?

  20. Finally a Novel Topic on Slashdot by Jungle+guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some might not have noticed, but it seems to be the first topic with the "N" logo from Novell. I don't like the company in particular, but you to admit that Novell is betting high on Linux and open source - although they are not abandoning their closed source software like Zenworks, a strategye they call "shared source".

    1. Re:Finally a Novel Topic on Slashdot by i2878 · · Score: 1
      yes, yes, yes. I DO like the company in particular, and am glad to see Novell get the /. recognition it deserves.

      --
      legal. fun. profitable. pick two.
    2. Re:Finally a Novel Topic on Slashdot by balster+neb · · Score: 1

      although they are not abandoning their closed source software like Zenworks, a strategye they call "shared source".

      I believe the term Novell uses is "mixed source". They work on open source as well as proprietary.

      "Shared source" is a term from Microsoft. They have a "shared source" licensing program under which certain people can see the source code of some of their programs under certain restrictions.

    3. Re:Finally a Novel Topic on Slashdot by Jungle+guy · · Score: 1
      Your are absolutely right, my mistake. The Novell marketing term is "mixed source". The business strategy seems doable to me, let's see if it pays off.

      IBM has a similar strategy, but with a difference: their revenues come not only from selling proprietary software that runs on Linux, but also from support and service contracts.

  21. More help for cross-platform developer tools by Hutchizon · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see more heavy-hitter funding and support for tools for writing cross-platform applications like the mono project (http://www.mono-project.com/) and wxWidgets (http://www.wxwindows.org/.

  22. They are not now, nor will ever be incompatible. by khasim · · Score: 1

    "I love the fact that Linux has the flexibility of having multiple flavors but I really think that making the flavors incompatible is a roadblock for wide acceptance."

    Check out the GPL.

    While there are MINOR differences in the DEFAULT installations of the various distributions, there is NOTHING that makes them "incompatible" with each other.

    Sure, one might (by default) install ext2, another ext3, another ReiserFS, but that doesn't mean that you can't run all of the above on any distribution.

    It might take a kernel recompile in the worst cases.

    For all the hype and claims about Linux "incompatibilities", I have yet to see any package that was not installable on any other distribution. Nor do I believe that there ever will be one.

  23. Think it through. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    A lot. For the most part Windows has been more consistent through various versions. Most of 95 would run on 98, and in fact a LOT will even run on all versions. There are huge exceptions, but these are with apps being produced by componies that want you to buy the latest version, and so the fault lies as much with them as it does with Microsoft.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  24. Not easy to port from Microsoft to KDE librairies by effco · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here is a replied I received from the UltraEdit peoples :

    Hello Frederic,

    Thanks for your message and suggestion. Ian has looked into this and
    other tools. The biggest barrier here is that much of UltraEdit's
    code is based on MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes). Because of this
    porting UltraEdit to Linux is not a minor undertaking as functions
    using MFC would have to be completely rewritten from scratch.

    Thanks, Troy

    Thursday, September 16, 2004, 5:28:25 AM, you wrote:

    fcsb> Hello,
    fcsb> is there any plan to port UltraEdit to Linux ?
    fcsb> If so, you could for example use the Qt C++ framework
    fcsb> from Trolltech (http://www.trolltech.com/) to speed up the
    fcsb> process
    fcsb> so that UltraEdit would available under KDE
    fcsb> (www.kde.org), the Linux's most used desktop system.
    fcsb> There is plenty of Linux text editor but none of them has
    fcsb> ever reached the level of quality of UltraEdit,
    fcsb> so I really think you could gaim some market shares up there too !
    fcsb> sheers,
    fcsb> Frederic

  25. Nothing new by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Interesting
    All OS vendors provide services like this (ie assistance getting your apps going on their offering). MS, IBM, HP,... all do. DEC and all it's long-dead cronies did too. So do middle-ware vendors like Oracle.

    This is particularly important for companies like Novell who are targeting corporate customers, most of whom run tailored software for their business purposes (as well as the office stuff for their admin, and other general purpose software).

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  26. Re:Why? by PinkX · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hmmm perhaps because Novell _OWNS_ SUSE now?

    Regards,

  27. Re:Why? by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

    Suse = NOVEL

    --
    what?
  28. There's a hopeful precedent by RetiredMidn · · Score: 2, Informative
    Back in the 80's, I worked for Lotus, and we heard much about how much many of our customers had invested in spreadsheet models implemented in 1-2-3. I saw it myself, when I provided some assistance to our town accountant in submitting a report to the state that was to be filled out using a 1-2-3 template.

    Through some combination of Lotus mis-steps and Microsoft strategy, Microsoft was able to wean the market off their dependence on 1-2-3. OpenOffice is a good start (not quite there yet) in providing part of the alternative.

    Some people have suggested that the Linux platform needs to do more than just mimic Windows applications to offer a compelling reason for people to switch. I agree. But OpenOffice is a necessary, if not sufficient, element in making it a viable alternative.

  29. where is... by glitch23 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft? They aren't listed.

    --
    this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  30. Uhhh...excuse me folks. by Gigantic1 · · Score: 1

    What applications are they to port? I haven't heard a single application mentioned. Why the mystery?

  31. Re:Not easy to port from Microsoft to KDE librairi by smurf975 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the bits and pieces of news and info that I know of wxWindows, porting a MFC app to wxWindows (cross platform) is 98% of the time just a matter of search and replace.

    So technically there is no excuse, however they were responding to a QT framework question.

    --
    -- I don't buy it, I grow it.
  32. Novell is in a great place now by Exter-C · · Score: 1

    Novel is in a great place now not to break microsofts monopoly or to become number one but to give the industry a reliable set of software products that run on more than one operating system. The days of Windows only or Mac only are numbered if all goes well. And that gives consumers a much great er choice in the end and even if they choose to always go with one vendor or not it doesnt matter the choices are there. If the choices are there peple will choose.. and the world will keep spinning and thats what makes the world a great place.. options.. and flexibility is also a bonus.

  33. Re:Not easy to port from Microsoft to KDE librairi by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course, the KDE project could always write a replacement for Microsoft's MFC. They could call it... wait for it... KFC. [Cue lame joke music, cut to commercial.]

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  34. Whoa man, thats Deep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I meen thats like a bug in the Monkeys software. a Pathing problem of sorts.

  35. Re:Not easy to port from Microsoft to KDE librairi by effco · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes It seems it's easier to port from MFC to wxWindows :
    http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/lib rar y/l-mfc/

  36. Re:Not easy to port from Microsoft to KDE librairi by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

    Well, not really. It's still a huge leap. Then you have the problem that wxWindows apps don't really feel native on any platform, which makes it a suboptimal solution. If you're going to port an app IMHO you should do it properly and get native UI in there (GTK or Qt) and maybe leave the backend to Winelib until you've got it all ported over to platform abstractions that work, unlike widget toolkit abstractions.

  37. Re:Not easy to port from Microsoft to KDE librairi by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Nope, not really. MFC is totally dependent on Win32, it exposes details all over the place like the message passing model, window handles and so on. It's also a disgustingly ugly API.

    I'd love to know how this "porting and migration center" is going to deal with all the desktop software that isn't as easy to port as UNIX server software is. It's not even like OpenOffice can deal with all MS Office documents, in particular the ones where people abuse Excel as a database, have MS Access databases lying around, write VBScript apps in Word etc.

  38. Re:Lotus Notes client for Linux would be nice by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

    You can run both Notes 6.5.1 and Photoshop using CrossOver Office.