Slashdot Mirror
The GPL Impedes Linux More Than It Helps?
Anonymous Coward writes "Linux ought to be even more successful than it is. On ZDNet, Paul Murphy ponders the reasons why. For one thing: The GPL impedes Linux more than it helps. Licensing issues, coupled with patent and copyright FUD, have caused developers and VCs to think twice before committing to Linux. Murphy also suspects that desktop Linux is stuck on stupid." From the post: "Basically, legal issues, or the threat of legal issues, caused some key applications developers to back off Linux while the general negativism of Linux marketing caused many of the individuals whose innovations should have been driving Linux adoption to hang fire until MacOS X and Solaris for x86 under the CDDL came along."
The author admits that the headline was inadvertently applied from a post he intends to do tomorrow.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Click here or here.
Yes, all FUD asside (and this is mostly FUD) if linux switched NOW to another license it MAY be usable in some situations where it isn't now. But what makes Linux itself is its license. If it had a different license it would simply be another UNIX clone would it not, and most likly it would still be sitting in Linus's FTP server right where he left it many years ago.
The low profile of FreeBSD when it is used in the enterprise (I'm talking servers, not OSX) is evidence that the GPL does nothing to hinder Linux. With a BSD-style license Linux would have no advantage to developers over BSD and wouldn't be in the position it is now.
This is typical ZDNet FUD. Is there any evidence that intelligent, well-informed businesspeople (i.e. those who have clueful lawyers) have a remote concern about licensing when choosing Linux?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
"stuck on stupid"
judging from his picture I'd say that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Well, you know, that's kind of like saying that air impedes an airplane. That's true, but it also flows over the wings and provides lift.
Note that we could also say the same thing about proprietary, commercial software too: that licensing restrictions and costs impede its adoption. But they also create the circumstances in which that software is created.
The goal of the GPL has never been rapid adoption of software, but rather adoption under particular circumstances.
Anyway, has there ever been a time between 1991 and now when Linux and free software in general have not grown in user base?
i dont think linus is to keen about the GPL, he never actively promotes it.
i dont know if he regrets using it for the kernel, but he is smart and rational and will never speak out against it.
even at the top of linux kernel LICENSE, he added some extra notes of his own.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
I never noted that my Linux desktop is stupid. I use it everyday to work and chat with friends but I seems stupid now.
Firefox and Opera both seens like a bad option to use, I mean... it's stupid, any person with brain will use that, and ofcourse Abiword isn't a great text processor that do the work.
With Gaim you just can't chat... I mean, its stupid.
Thanks god I'm not running Windows.
I mean, what are the basics to say it is ready or stucked, I've seen things in Linux years before other operating systems and it keep growing.
>Linux is not user-friendly.
It _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly.
Put identity in the browser.
Guess the editors are [tt]rolling the readers - must be Troll Tuesday again.
Because OSX isn't for everyone. I use it everyday at work, but when I get home I much prefer using kde on my linux box. I can configure it pretty much any way I want it and in my opinion most of the software is better. I prefer Amarok to iTunes, digikam to iPhoto, gaim to adium and so on.
OSX looks pretty and does work well (especially expose), but I have my desktop at home set up exactly how I want it, where as with OSX I'm always conforming to their way of doing things.
I Love Alberta Beef
Most likely quicker than the time it takes pizza to go from roof-of-mouth scalding hot to zero-Kelvin cold...
I see no reason to squabble about it. Everyone knows that Gnome is better. Of course, I am typing this from KDE on Knoppix...
Click here or here.
The GPL claims to protect the user's freedoms, but that's plain wrong. The GPL protects other users freedoms at the expense of any one individual's ability to use a piece of code completely freely. Corporate lawyers have a hard time coming to terms with that, and for good reason. The GPL is as much an ethical statement as a license, and it's not something that a commercial producer of software should take lightly. The modified Artistic license and modified BSD license are much more user friendly, and if Linux and most Linux software used those instead adoption would probably be greater. It's not clear that would be better though.
For a large company looking to create software for Linux, all they need to do is write their own software and not link to any GPL'd code. This is no different than any other software (except that some might use win32 libs for gui, but I'm just guessing -I'm no programmer). There is no legal question in that, and I find it strange that a company would think there is one.
As for Microsoft FUD - that's simply directed against any competitor. GPL is rallying banner for most of the opensource community, so naturally they're targetting it with their immense advertising budgets.
The Raven
Having ethics is an impediment to success in many fields. If the GPL weren't there to enforce the ethic of keeping the source open, of course it'd be more readily adoptable.
You'd maybe see software technologies developed for linux integrated into proprietary commercial closed-source applications, just as they did with the BSD implementation of TCP/IP in MS Windows, or BSD/Darwin into Mac OS X.
It wouldn't bring about the desired effect of keeping software Free, though. What do we want Linux to be?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Murphy:Sun == Dvorak:Microsoft == O'Gara:SCOX
Interestingly, neither Linux, *BSD, nor Apple/OSX seem to have doltish lapdogs in the same way. Sure, proponents of Linux, BSD and OSX sometimes say foolish things. But there's no single figure from those communities who can be so relied upon to unthinking chant trollish drivel.
Buy Text Processing in Python
So he is saying that Solaris under the CDDL is more successful than Linux??? I'm glad we have experts at ZDNet to tell us these things. *sigh*
Which is unfortunate, because at times it seems that Paul Murphy has finally caught a glimmer of a clue, but it keeps dancing away just out of his reach. FWIW, the GPL only gets a minor mention, and Murphy seems to recognize that to the extent that Linux growth has slowed, it is primarily due to FUD over imagined legal issues, not over any actual legal issues. In addition, the adoption rate of Linux will naturally slwo just because the more of the market you have, the harder it is to grow.
I have to wonder why people think the same old UNIX-vs-Linux flame war is interesting. One side claims that BSD-style licenses were responsible for UNIX forking incompatibly during the 1980s. The other side claims that strong copyleft licenses keep people from contributing. Both arguments contain some truth, but it's impossible to say that one or the other license is right for all applications because there are so many other factors that go into whether software ("free", "open source" or "proprietary") is successful. Unless you have a universe simulator and go back to re-run the last 15 years using a different license, arguing BSD vs GPL for existing software is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Even if the GPL is slowing corporate adoption, an assertion proved by nothing more than the statement "I think" and a fun little example of the post hoc fallacy, that's no reason to ditch the concept. Sure, more corporations might adopt Linux if it were a closed-source program, but why they'd want a relatively unsophisticated OS by some Scandinavian kid instead of the more robust UNIX is beyond me.
Do you see what I mean? You can't separate the success of Linux from its community and core ideal. They rise and fall together. One of the things I respect about ESR is his realization that good code alone won't win adoption for a GPL'd program. This is about ideas as much as code--and philosophers and salesmen are as much combatants against Microsoft and chattel software* as any F/OSS programmer.
*I asked RMS about that phrase. He didn't think it was all that good, but I still kind of like it. What do you think?
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
Yes, Linus is a talented manager. But he also started without the tremendous codebase that BSD has always had.
Personally, I'm getting a little fed up with the anti-GPL griping. I suspect the gripers of wanting to abuse code they didn't write. People married to the commercial commodity model of software so successfully exploited by Bill Gates. I have yet to hear an objection I find balanced. Most are just "I want more".
owners of OmniFi DMP1's can testify to this at length.
Dupe story at 11.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
It seems to me that companies have always had a choice of other operating systems that would allow them more freedom to change the source code and not worry about having to contribute back to the community. Witness the BSD license.
I believe that Linux has been significantly helped because of the GPL. Anybody that is worried about licensing issues with the GPL can just use a BSD derivative and call it a day.
As for the CDDL I have a feeling it will get little attention since it is not compatible with the GPL. It's like creating their own little island community of developers. Yeah, it's nice that they're opening their source code, but there's not much use in everyone dabbling in it because you are unable to take the work elsewhere. I remember IBM trying the same thing with their own incompatible license and it went absolutely nowhere.
The other thing was stability between versions. Linux is notorious for changing kernel APIs between minor versions. This is fine if all of your hardware has maintained open source drivers, but if not then upgrading becomes a game of Russian Roulette - seeing which devices will stop working (it was USB mass storage devices in our department's Linux lab last year, for about a month, with SuSE Linux). Any unmaintained drivers eventually find themselves using a no-longer-supported API and stop working, while closed drivers are often not updated often enough to notice the kernel change until users have started complaining.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I am definitely against old people in Korea. I mean, if God meant us to be old, we'd have been born that way.
From the article:
IBM's endorsement of Linux, the SCO law suit in response, and Red Hat's negative market stance as the Sun killing would be Microsoft of the Linux era combined to destroy the automatic assumption among key innovators in the United States that Linux was "the place to be" -eventually moving many of them to the BSD and Solaris camps where they're now driving the fastest installed base expansions in the history of computing
Murphy talks about an automatic assumption but he's hidden one of his own in this para: that the only key innovators in the US are vendors and venture capitalists. GPLed software lets just about anyone with half a brain and an itch to scratch be an innovator.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
There would be no Linux if there were no GPL, or a licensing scheme like it.
And the Microsofts of this world don't like GPL or anything like it.
This is not a problem for Linux. It is a problem for companies like Microsoft. End of non-story.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
the GPL is the only thing keeping Linux from forking, face it between official kernel releases the distros play games with it. When the new kernel is released they all come back. If they could keep their changes from feeding back into the kernel they might not go back to the official release and we will end up with the mess UNIX has had to deal with
Without the GPL, Linux would not be prevalent now. Indeed, the BSD license provides absolute Freedom, Freedom such that software can then revert to being non-Free at the drop of a hat. Mac OS X is an example of this. Linux, however, by means of the GPL, will always be Free. Because of this, we do not have to be concerned that our software, our operating system, the very way we use our computers, will ever change. Rather than anarchy, the GPL respects and includes many Freedoms while ensuring that future users, and indeed our future selves as well, will continue to benefit from the software forever, rather than saying 'OK, here it is, do what you want with it, we don't care.' With the GPL, we can't be exploited by opportunistic software firms that want to release a product without much work. And we'll still be able to churn out superior software long into the future.
Do you Gentoo?
I was reading opinions like Linux is failing because of the GPL and kept thinking "in what particular way? Give me an example where the GPL is failing Linux - a hard real example such as 'technology professional X reviewed Linux and found this failing in the GPL so decided to go with another choice'". Or the opinion that Linux should try to be something other than a WinDOAs look alike - such as what precisely? I mean it's really easy to point out flaws, but just a tad more of an undertaking to provide real answers and solutions.
Reading all this felt a bit like someone saying they think my shoes are ugly without any real information on how they could be better or why particularly they're ugly. I mean he has a right to his opinion of things but ultimately, if he was hoping to actually keep my attention, I would think he would try to at least give me something concise, with real value and of some interest to me. Ultimately I was left with the impression that he can insult Linux, and the point in that exercise is what? Was it just me who was left feeling that way?
"As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue." ~A. Einstein
The US Constitution impedes your rights more than it helps. Let's just get rid of that annoying little document.
I did due diligence once when a company was assimilated by VC investors. We had to list every OSS package we used and its license. For starters, look here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
It's a long, tedious list of legalspeak. You may end up depending on "Akbar and Jeff's Semi-artistic Hut License" for a critical piece of SW. Kind of gives a VC the willies, especially if he can get a new Hummer by forcing your company to buy his buddy's crapware instead and pocket the kickback. (Not that that happens in real life, no sir.)
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
A wish for mod points when I need them...
While Desktop Linux has been improving, it is stuck because of a lack of interest and motivation to make it a desktop replacement. If you look at this article with Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth, it's fairly easy to see that people don't particularly care about the perspective of Linux for anyone except developers and those to whom "source code" even means something. It's generally the same thing with the GPL, where it's written from and for a programmer's perspective. Sure, I as a "user" like the source code and completely understand the "freedom" in that context because I actually appreciate and use the source code.
./configure your way to hell. I want something where there is a standard way to install something.
From a real "user's" perspective, however, source code is useless. Unless they have the technical knowledge to change something, or the resources to hire someone to change/configure something for them, it's a total non-starter. From that perspective, Windows, while bad in many respects, actually offers more "freedom" to an end user in terms of what it allows them to do by themselves without having to go through a steep learning curve and specialize in something that should be a tool.
I have been using Linux for well over thirteen years, and I absolutely *loathe* how hard it is to do simple things. I want a fully integrated GUI. Sure, I can do it the hard way, and I like that the power of the CLI is there when I *choose* to go into it, but for the most part, it completely sucks. Apt-get my !@#$.
If source code is the way, then make a completely GUI-oriented, extremely simple, build tool that will take the source as a package and install it without having to type a single command. I would say that perhaps Gentoo was on to something, but from what I understand the community is even more elitist than most.
So long as Linux relies on GPL, Microsoft cannot co-opt the code into Windows. SCO can also roll Linux code into its Unix and not apologize.
I agree with the above poster's comment that GPL gives Linux life as well as drag--but more lift.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Linux works great, but you have to recompile for every little change to the system.
Notice how on most OS's you can own a CD of an application and just install it? Because there are STANDARDS! That's what hurts third-party support.
Flexibility is good, but if they would make a usable standard and stick with it, we might not have to worry about recompiling so often.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
So why is BSD dying?
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I think he's trying to hard. He starts by asking why all of the momentum that Linux built up during the late 90's is hard to see today. I'm just going to take a guess and say that maybe a lot of that enthusiasm went down with the dot com crash. You know, when the big tech bubble burst, and pretty much everyone's hype fell through? When businesses finally realized that just throwing more and more money into their IT departments wouldn't magically increase their productivity by 600% each year, perhaps that something to do with it?
I don't think it's been a problem with Linux as much as a more realistic take on the tech industry. Plowing ahead at the blistering pace of the late 90's was fun, but it resulted in a whole lot of wasted money, and it's recent enough that people are still remembering that. It's just a little bit harder to sell that kind of hype right now, so we don't hear as much of it. Meanwhile, Linux is continuing to do what it's always done, there's plenty of development going on for it, and new people continue to adopt it. It might be a little slower right now, it's definitely quieter at the moment, but progress hasn't hit a brick wall.
I think this guy is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Solaris isn't even as 'free' as Linux. MacOSX isn't free at all. So I wonder why are they even brought up. Abolishing the GPL would benefit M$ only. I think it is quite good that we have Linux AND the BSDs. Everyone can pick the best for their taste, and shut up about the licenses. Who cares if Linux doesn't work for everyone, it works for me :)
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Umm. So if that was so much hassle, why didn't you write all your stuff yourself?
Dvorak on Doomtech
So I have to ask. Do you compose each jingle as you write the post, or do you have an archive of them you pull from? I suspect the latter as they don't seem to have any clever reference to the discussion topic in them.
Yay for user friendliness!
Just look at Ubuntu. It is an evolution of Desktop Linux, is closely tracking Gnome, and is defiantely not trying to be a Windows-Work-A-Like.
Hardware support (Totally Rad Laptop Support!) is also greatly improved.
For someone who actually works with Desktop Linux every day in a reasonably large (~300 computer) installation, it has improved hands down. Applications are getting better and third parties
-- dieman - Scott Dier
You could make more money if Linux were BSD. Well, we don't care. Linux is not your money machine. Now shove off and use what IS available under the licenses you want. Do I have to tell you that it's the GPL which made Linux what it is today, the OS that you want to get your dirty hands on without being annoyed by that stupid return-the-favor license?
The real argument is whether it's Linux or Gnu/Linux.. ..or is that whether Linux is an operating system or just a Kernel?
I forget
Seriously though, I have both SuSE and Ubuntu at home. I use the SuSE install for entertainment and for the family to use and Ubuntu for my work at home setup. I like both KDE and Gnome but I find I prefer KDE for the "entertainment" system and Gnome for the "work" system.
I hope they both stick around. I also hope both sides agree on a login manager that works equally well with either one. Call it "IDM" since I is halfway between "G" and "K".
A goal is a dream with a deadline
In fact, if not for the GPL, IBM, HP, etc would never have signed on to it. They do not mind sharing source code, but they want to know that a company such as MS can not come in and hijack it.
Right now, MS could support BSD and kill the market from under Apple. That is what happened in Unix, after it was closed. The big players slowly killed off the little guys by adding closed source that was unavailable to them.
Besides, keep in mind that only Windows is a moneymaker (and that is due to the monopoly in Office). No other OS makes a direct profit. Not even Apple, or any of the linux distros.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I understand this. I got a powerbook last January or February. At first I was amazed at the eye-candy
Anyway, as the year has worn on, I'm liking OSX less and less. I've played with Tiger on other people's computers, but I don't see any improvement - just gimicks. These annoyances really start to add up -- I suppose it's time to check and see if the trackpad issues have been resolved yet. That's the only thing that's held me back.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
IANAL, but I think the GPL protects Linux rather than hurts it. Without the GPL, there probably would not be the free and open Linux we see today. It would likely be just another struggling proprietary OS destined to disappear once its owner was bought out or went bankrupt or just gave up on it (see OS/2). I really don't care if giant corporations adopt Linux or not, I just want a good tool that helps me get work done and helps me have fun on occasion as well.
The fact that Linux is free and open means, almost by definition, that it cannot have "success" in the usual sense. It cannot be easily sold shrinkwrapped for profit. And it cannot be closed up to thwart competitors either. By the same measure, it also means that it cannot fail either, for there will always be someone for whom it is the right tool at the right time even if MegaCorp Inc. can't make a dime off of it. The GPL makes this possible. Linux isn't going to die anytime soon, but it probably isn't going to be the OS of your grandma either, that is until it's widely used in cell phones, but that's another story!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Probably mostly Microsoft impedes Linux more than it helps.
Why your fat wife "ought to be losing" 50 pounds? If she were anything else, she would not be your fat wife.
We all yell at ATI & Nvidia to "open-up" their drivers. As in release it under the GPL.
ATI & Nvidia don't want to because they say that the competition will learn all the cool tricks.
I know nothing about programming. Can't the competition just download a driver, decompile it and see all the tricks inside? It's not like they can hide the 1's and 0's.
How would releaseing the drivers as GPL make the drivers better?
The FUD from ZDNet is thick. Could this video card issue "prove" that the first company to open up the code will win?
---Clueless in Canada
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
ah, the ultimate goal: Desktop Linux. He is right, its stalled. Distros like Ubuntu *almost* reach competitive usability. Almost because there is always some stuff that doesn't work properly. But this is rapidly being cured out.
/etc/fstab editing instructions, this should be possible with a nice graphical app. In fact, NOTHING regarding desktop usage should ever require xterm usage and/or configfiles editing.
Two potential reasons for the stall:
1. Lack of self-explaining software.
Software should not require the user to read the manual for the most basic tasks, the user should be able to find them out easily. KDE apps usually are self-explaining, GNOME apps too, however most other opensource projects aren't.
2. Application installation. This is a nasty one. The immediate answer is usually that the distros all have such a nice package system. Yeah, but what if software XY isn't in the package database? Tough luck, have fun compiling (if its not a binary-only version). This is where Windows is lightyears ahead: setup screens all look the same, behave the same way, and are easy to install. Linux? ahem... The only ones who got it right were Loki, who created their Loki installer. It is dead easy to install UT2004 in Linux. ALL apps should have self-extracting graphical installers, and the installation system should be *DE*centralized.
3. Hardware support. Despite the advances in the last years, hardware support still sucks sometimes. Try to get a TwinkeCam to work with Ubuntu 5.04. Its impossible unless you want to downgrade the KERNEL to a 2.4 one. Compiling the driver is not possible because of broken code that is incompatible with the 2.6 kernel (even with the 2.6 patches to the Makefile).
4. The community. Look, if you want people to choose Linux instead of Windows, you have to change something. "RTFM" is intolerable. Questions like how to mount a network share should not end in some obscure
To sum it up: People like stuff that "Just Works". Linux desktops rarely just work. The moments when they don't are far more frequent than with Windows and OSX desktops.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
Make of that what you will.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If you want to carve a mountain, you need the patience of a glacier. By whose metric has Linux been "held back"? What with the near ubiquity in servers, companies like Nokia moving over on their handsets, states like Peru and Brazil, and harware like MIT's $100 laptop I think it's clear that the 8-ball that is Linux is accellerating.
As with the desktop... The GPL isn't "holding it back". X is holding it back. Lack of information architects / human interface experts is holding it back. I've used Linux as my primary operating environment for 2 of the 4 machines I've relied on in the last 5 years. What's kept me coming back to OS X wasn't the lack of applications. I always found a solution for everything I needed to do. It was the general crappiness of X windows and the ugly, klugy UI that drove me away (I've used both KDE and GNOME... they're both guilty).
I think that Linux as a whole has been and will continue to be a spectacular success and this is due in part to the GPL. The Human Interface and graphical layer have a LOT of room for improvement... but that's not the GPL's fault and I think that in time those areas will themselves become spectacular successes as well. Likely as a result of the Free and Open licensing which surrounds them.
The Public Domain cannot be improved upon. The notion that copyright can be used to help free software is incorrect, based on an invalid definition of 'free'.
Linus Torvalds announcing that at LKML that from then all Linux code should be released as CDDL or BSD license.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
It reminds me of when I was helping my daughter learn to ride a bike.
She was peddling along and I was running along by the side holding the back of the seat to keep it steady.
She said "I'm doing it, dad, I'm doing it - dad, get off, I'm doing it."
It was only my holding on that stopped her falling down, but she couldn't see that.
So, the GPL might stop a few VC's from investing in something Linux-y, so what!
If it wasn't for the GPL, then GNU/Linux wouldn't have become what is now starting to tempt VC's.
What do I care for VC's, GNU/Linux suits ME and a lot of people find it that way. I've debugged, contributed source and a few bug fixes, and it's been an absolute bargain for me.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
"I want to have my cake and eat it too"
The GPL has pros and cons. Advantages and disadvantages. To argue what Linux would be without the GPL, is to argue what Porsche's marketshare would be if the cars were free. It doesn't make sense because Porsche wouldn't exist. The BSDs are maybe as close as you come to "Linux without GPL". Why aren't they taking over the world then? Perhaps because the GPL also provides a lot of source that the BSDs never get. Now you can get into a flamewar over which is better, but pretending you could have both is just a silly thought experiment.
As for the other part, every major change has seen companies go head first into a brick wall, because 95% of the time staying with the masses is the right way to go. If *everybody* was jumping to Linux, it'd be the first such migration in history.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
...controlling a higher percentage of market share you could be right. I have no way to test this. But for me progress is not about marketshare but about the advancement of ideals that support freedom in many senses. Too often we are seduced by market forces and the power that comes with more sales and higher marketshare. For me I'd rather have less and be free then have more but be restricted.
For me the GPL is the only license I see that succeeds in that, at least in the ways that are meaningful to me. Now, I suppose those freedoms may not be meaningful to you. I can't judge it, only be sure of my personal convictions in the matter. Time will tell who is right, I think.
Peace, or Not?
You're the one who is unclear on the meaning of simple English words. The GPL has absolutely no restrictions on the USE of software released under it. The only restrictions have to do with REDISTRIBUTION of GPLed software.
"Use" and "distribution" are two ENTIRELY separate things. Your complete inability to grasp that concept smacks of FUD.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
If God existed, he'd show himself every once in a while.
i tend to think these days that the reason GPL develops fanatics, and enemies alike, is that it is, like many other sources of fanaticism and enemy'ism, a spell.
..
yes, thats right, i mean magic. the GPL is a simple spell.
essentially, the GPL is a self-enforced rule, dictum, set of words defining a reality, which, when applied by adherents, results in certain calculable effects. those effects are definitely measurable in todays markets, from closet hackers to the embedded space, linux abounds. [this desktop-war straw man is so 90's man, get over it already. microsoft did, you should too!]
namely, the code GPL'ed in question, will be put to use by adherents, rapidly, to do some sort of productive thing with their '$ARCH'. an endless, categorical stream of reality changes can occur, starting with words alone, whispered in the ear of some gcc target or two.
ignore the GPL, use the GPL, get behind it, sit on top of it, try to make money off of it (you most certainly can), the point is, there is only one thing stopping it from actually working, and that is: working hardware.
the GPL creates an equitable economic system whereby a 'bridging politic' ties creation, distribution, and use of software, 'more magic spells', into one thing, and one thing only: working hardware.
so, attack the GPL at will, berate it at will, put whatever will into it you will, in the end what matters is what you set your $ARCH to, and who you're giving that $ARCH to, too
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The gpl allows (requires?) software to evolve.
It is the way.
He can't have an archive of them for Gods sake. If he did you would expect them to at least rhyme and scan.
Translation: We can't take the code developed by thousands of programmers over 15 years, make it proprietary, and contribute nothing back.
Response: Yep. that's the whole fucking point!
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
The GPL impedes Linux more than it helps.
Oh, yeaaah...
And that's why Linux is dying, and BSD is poised to challenge Windows for dominance of the desktop market.
-- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
BSD license aside, look at the licenses for other Unixes or other systems like Windows. You basically rent the stuff. You have to pay big bucks for it.
So, Linux has an excellent license when it comes to being able to use the great code and complete operating system components without paying a dime. If these people are really dying to write closed source applications using open source code, well, I don't know what to say. I think they could *pay* to do that, don't you?
So why didn't BSD get as popular as it is today without the GPL? Probably because corporations have been sucking out the peices they want to use and giving nothing back because they don't have to. The BSD community was never a sharing community. I don't think it is today either, although because of Linux it's become more so. Do you really think the *BSDs would be as popular now if Linux never came along?
Not to mention, most BSD systems use a heavy amount of GPL code these days, and the Linux kernel on GNU toolsets really took the GPL to the public. What would your favorite BSD look like without any of it?
Many programmers, and companies, are willing to contribute to GPL codebases because they're not willing to let the competition or some company to take their work, close source it, and sell it as something new and better to make bundles of cash. If they're going to give to the community, they want others to do the same. The GPL promotes that type of system.
People will complain about it because they want to use the code like it was public domain but it's not. Maybe this is considered "holding it back" but in my opinion we don't want that kind of thing anyways.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
For people like Maui-X (Cherry OS and X-Stream) who blatantly want to take the creation of others and call it their own to make a bigger profit off of it, without even contributing anything or crediting the original authors. But these kinds of people have always been the scum of the human race. The good thing is that there aren't that many of these kind of people.
The semi-bad thing is that there are a lot of companies who think that if they were to release source code for part of their product or the whole thing, that they wouldn't be able to sell the product and their competitors would be able to use the ideas in their code to create a better product, thereby puttting them out of business. They may or may not be right about losing potential sales by releasing source code.
Look at Apple. They took an open source OS, added a nice GUI and easy to use applications, and their sales of Macintosh computers are up from when the OS was closed source. (This isn't the only reason for sales being up, but it sure didn't cause them to lose sales.)
Businesses need to learn that long-term gains and generosity to the public are better for business than short-term gains and suing the pants off of your customers and competitors.
This article is flawed.
The author claims that the growth of Linux has slowed but offers no stats to support his argument.
Then he tries to explain what he hasn't proven with two points which are are basically the same.
GPL and related licensing issues, combined with considerable FUD over patents and copyrights.
IBM's endorsement of Linux, the SCO law suit in response,
I've been developing Linux business systems for nearly 10 years and I've never heard of a company not adopting Linux for legal reasons. Also wasn't aware that Linux is having a growth problem.
If this were truly the case then the *BSD's would be enjoying phenomenal success, but they're even more ignored than Linux is in corporate America.
Thin clients essentially have no future over the Internet unless and until bandwidth versus "thickness of thin client" issues are dealt with. Totally thin with nothing running on the remote client, somewhat thin with graphics running on the client, fat with only databases sitting on the server... What is thin?
Now in the home, what would really drive things along is if you had ONE home PC that was modular like a blade server but on the same price scale as one and a half current personal computers, with multiple boards and multiple processors per board with an OS that does multiple sorts of clustering simultaneously and ridiculously cheap high-speed wireless tablet interfaces that do almost nothing on them and as such don't require any horsepower.
If you merely had to buy new boards for $300 a piece to upgrade processors every couple of years and could get slave boards for $200 a piece, but the clients were $100 and could be used indefinitely as long as they were intact, that I could see people buying.
Especially with add-ons for more central home use like digital cable and satellite tuners and dvr functions like Myth TV and in-house PBX with a mini Asterisk system.
This is the sort of well thought out package deal that Linux should be heading into before Microsoft goes there and eats their lunch. Given the nature of the Linux community, I don't doubt that this will happen as Microsoft is cohesive and top down and when they move, they do it in force. The Linux world is endlessly divisive and schismatic internally, loaded with disparate factions and egos, and overall totally oblivious to common sense and human nature. Those who use it and OSS in general have to do the big picture cobbling together of things and all the struggling themselves and then run into the roadblock of all the parts they use being run by people with cross purposes and no allegiance to the great things they may be doing with those things.
And so it goes...
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Guys, your average computer user doesn't give a darn about computer licences.
Every time I install a piece of software and it comes up with this "licence agreement" bullhockey I immediately hit "Next" without reading a bit of it. I'm not interested in ten million pages of how someone thinks I should use software on my computer or another ten million pages of corporate CYA.
So I think it's silly to say that adoption of any particular piece of software is driven by licensing. Perhaps in the corporate world, but not for your average computer user.
To me, Joe Average, there are two kinds of software in the world: Commercial and free. I tend to be leary of "free" software. Free software typically means to me that noone's ass is on the line if it doesn't work. Consequently, I usually am more comfortable using commercial software, because even though we've all experienced crappy commercial software, I still feel like someone has a stake in whether or not it works, and so my impression is that it's less risky.
Now I have to admit, my impressions are changing. Firefox is a great example of a free program that seems to work great. But for now, to me "free software" still equates to "might not work". And that, to me, is the biggest hinderance to the adoption of "free" alternatives to commercial offerings.
Steve
Get back in the games section! Go on, now. Scoot.
The kind of people who want Linux under a more restrictive license are the kind that either want to control it, or co-opt it behind their own proprietary system (similar to what can be done with BSD). In other words, this is just more of people bitching that they aren't allowed to just steal Linux.
The GPL, and the Freedom it's granted, has helped Linux far more than it's hindered. Linux would never have grown anything remotely like it has without it. And it's users certainly appreciate that freedom...I know I appreciate that freedom.
Take this FUD, and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
``I've been developing Linux business systems for nearly 10 years and I've never heard of a company not adopting Linux for legal reasons.''
A former employer of mine had planned to port its flagship software to Linux and reversed course after SCO filed its suit. Their primary engine was already ported to HP/UX, AIX, and Solaris, so I don't think porting to Linux would have been that difficult for them.
They may have changed their path back to their former plans since I left, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. From what I understand, the legal department said that deploying Linux should be delayed at least until resolution of SCO's various lawsuits. Of course, their estimation of SCO's lawsuits may have changed in the interim.
And about those kernel API's, that is why you should use the packages of ONE provider (or have a bit more skill). Because if you do, SuSE (or any other bigger distro) will make sure your automatic upgrades are without issues. What more do you want? I suppose you started experimenting with your installation and were bitten by your own actions. It happens.
Oh, and if something breaks after an upgrade, you simply do a rollback. Upgrading doesn't have to be a risky, sloppy administrating however is very risky.
Red Hat is not the only Linux distro of course, but if you check out their recent financials, http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67156& p=irol-irhome, I'm not quite sure why he feels that Linux adoption is slowing down.
I found myself missing things that I discovered I had really come to depend on... like multiple desktops
Being an OS X and Linux (among other OS's) user myself, I think the vast majority of these type of issues are simply that people are accustomed to doing things in a particular way, and then try to find a way to not have to learn a new method. Multiple desktops, for example, solve the problem of finding and navigating large numbers of windows of data and controls. They work well and we love them. Expose solves the same problem in a different way and we love it. Both solutions are better in some ways and ideally we could use both on any platform. Right now, however, Expose is only working well on OS X and virtual desktops work well only for some other UNIX's, like Linux (yes, I know and don't care about UNIX vs. Linux). It is hard to say in the long run which platform will have the advantage. I know I do just fine without virtual desktops since starting to use Expose and I get by without expose using virtual desktops in Linux. I think I prefer expose in general, but that is just a personal preference highly influenced by my workflows.
The point I am making is each platform has its strengths and weaknesses, but you can't discover them by moving platforms and then trying to replicate your old workflows and features on a different OS. Launching applications with Spotlight, for example is much, much faster than other methods. That is a real improvement, not a gimmick. being able to quickly and easily search for a term within the contents of HTML, text, PDF, Word, OpenOffice, etc. file types is a real advantage of Tiger, not a gimmick. Automator is, as far as I know, a unique and great alternative to traditional scripting that brings a lot of power to novice users that they have been lacking. It also provides hooks for all sorts of scripting that I have not seen elsewhere. It is a real improvement, not a gimmick. Now I'd love it if Apple implemented all the features you like as optional UI settings and I'd love it if the major Linux distros would clone all of the functionality I mentioned above as well as all the other missing features. I just don't see that happening in a reasonable timeframe. My advice to you in the mean time is to try to break some of your current habits and use a Linux box the way it is designed to be used and use an OS X box the way it is designed to be used. Trying to use either, hacked to behave like some other OS is always going to be a sub-optimal experience.
BSD was under something of a shadow when Linux was in its infancy. It wasn't until the settlement between AT&T and UCB that BSD started to pick up steam again. Where BSD might of gone if AT&T never sued is an open question.
> The GPL impedes Linux more than it helps. Licensing issues, coupled with
> patent and copyright FUD, have caused developers and VCs to think twice
> before committing to Linux.
Damn right, which is why all those developers have instead been developing for FreeBSD instead of for Linux. Oh, wait; they haven't been.
Well, then, surely they've been making developing for Solaris instead. Oh, wait; they haven't been.
It's real easy for an armchair quarterback to drone on and on about how they could've really run that game.
The reality is that FreeBSD and the GNU projects were languishing; they had a strong core of technical people using them, but were making no perceptible inroads into mass market acceptance. Linux under the GPL got people exited enough do do what no one else has done, and make radically new software licensing models, development models, and a brand-new OS commercially viable.
NeXt, BeOS, Plan 9, every other great new OS people wrote about in the trade press is either gone or on life support.
> Murphy also suspects that desktop Linux is stuck on stupid." From the post:
> "Basically, legal issues, or the threat of legal issues, caused some key
> applications developers to back off Linux while the general negativism of
> Linux marketing caused many of the individuals whose innovations should have
> been driving Linux adoption to hang fire until MacOS X and Solaris for x86
> under the CDDL came along."
"Key applications developers" like who? Every time I've seen a writer who was convinced he know what application the world needed, or what was going to be the killer app, he was DEAD WRONG.
According to the columnists, by now we were all supposed to be running NetPCs from Sun, using office suites built in Java, buying time on the network server in an updated mainframe cost model.
That's the version they fed us after the one that had all of us using Corel Office or Lotus SmartSuite.
The reality is that many of the most exiting projects that have been done recently would never have been attempted without an OS under the GPL, and many of the next killer apps are likely to have been written by people who only took the time to do so -because- of Open Source and the GPL.
Thin clients were tremendously viable alternatives for personal computers right up until the mid-90s. You could buy an X-Terminal from anyone, and use it with a huge variety of timeshared computer systems running UNIX as well as proprietary operating systems like VMS.
What happened?
First, companies that were using X11 (including, at long last, Sun) decided that they were going to push a *new* kind of "thin client" that would only work with their servers and was incompatible with everyone else's "thin clients".
Second, home computers grew up to the point where they were competitive with X-terminals on price. The X-terminals could have been built cheaper, but the companies making them held on to their high margins, and home computers took over the office desktop.
The X Consortium should have done everything they could to get free or cheap high quality X servers out for every home computer platform, with low-bandwidth proxies built in. They should have come out with a browser plug-in, so you could run high-quality kiosk applications on a server and display them in your browser using X11 and LBX. But the X cornsortium consisted primarily of the companies involved in the asshole moves described above, so actually promoting the technology they were formed to promote was beyond them.
As for bandwidth... today, you have more bandwidth available to use through a broadband connection than I had on the LAN between my Xerox X-terminal and our Alphaserver... it's a non-issue.
Linux is where it is today thanks to the GNU project and the idea of free software; without these things there wouldn't even be a linux kernel.
The GPL is often portrayed by many people as being "restrictive," but it is what it is in order to protect our freedoms ("we" being the free software movement and general users). While private interests detest the GPL's requirement of openness and cooperation, I refuse to believe that other, more "friendly" licenses (such as the BSD license) are better for the community (that means you).
Perhaps not everyone is a computer programer. Some of us want the computer to work for us, not us work for the computer.
"They said we couldn't do it [Athlon]... but we built it, we shipped it... and we didn't have to recall it." Rich Heye
So what if Linux isn't being adopted as quickly as it should?
What's so great about "quick"?
All of these businessfolk, always wanting things to grow quickly. I'm much more concerned with Linux adoption growing the right way, than as quickly as possible.
I know what some of you are saying, "With that attitude the Linux world will lose a lot of business." Yep. Get over it. ANd don't be so greedy, kiddo.
The GPL is more than a license. It is a method, a process. It also imposes discipline. The people that write GPLed code do so very carefully. If not, their code ends up in the great bit bucket in the sky; discarded by everyone else because it is sloppy, buggy, slow, whatever.
If there was no GPL, Linux would be chock full of bugs, security holes, memory leaks, module and library incompatibilities, and who knows what else. Sure there would be more device drivers, commercial games, innovations(?) and so forth, but would that make Linux better?
I say no, it would only make Linux different. More importantly, it would not make Linux better than its current competitors. To put it bluntly, unless I am paid to do so, I don't use M$ products anymore. They are just too much trouble. The last time I had a dual boot box was with a copy of 2K. It's gone. I don't even know where the CD is. Already I have told friends and family members that have come to me for help because their win98/2K/XP box is hosed to seek help elsewhere as I am no longer up to date on M$ products and their troubles.
Linux IS better than its competitors today. The marketdroids can argue all they want about TCO and other trivia. The fact is that Linux is gaining because more and more people are finding out that not only is it better, it is also better by enough of a margin to be worth the trouble(cost) of changing over.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Paul Murphy has been living on making weird statements and had been and continues to be a notorious Sun fanboy. Don't take anything he says as important.
I'm not so sure Linux desktop is "stuck on stupid," or that this is a GPL issue. If you ask me, there's only a couple problems that still exist with Linux becoming a desktop option--and this is coming from a life-long Windows user who evaluates the most popular Linux distribution once a year.
.Doc Culture. This is apparently starting already to wither away--at least I see the light at the end of the tunnel. The Google/Sun announcement today should start chipping away at this soon enough.
First of all, here are the misconceptions about why Linux isn't making it on the desktop:
1) Package Dependencies. Do you think 90% of Windows users understand this, or even understand DLLs? They're just as lost either way. Linux desktop actually has a STRENGTH in this area because it comes pre-loaded with 95% of everything the average user wants and needs, and the other 5% can get enough support or is smart enough to get past their problems.
2) Difficulty of Install. The average user can't even install Windows. Linux again has a strength here because frankly it installs much faster. The weakness here is hardware support, which is getting better with every release and really just needs a major investor with an interest in killing Microsoft behind it to remedy this problem. (see Google and Sun Office)
3) Legacy Software. Yes it's true that people have a lot of legacy windows software. But Wine is pretty darn good at what it does, and more importantly Windows isn't even good at running legacy Windows software. Have you ever tried to run a Win-98 game on Win-XP? Good luck. People are used to their software becoming obsolete (or breaking), and think it's par for the course. Christ, my neighbor threw away a 9 month old PC because it was so slow she thought it was broken. I saw it in the trash and asked her what she was doing, and she said "it's slow and broken." Turns out it was just a Windows problem and I picked it out of the trash and reloaded her P4 system from scratch for her. Legacy Software? Ha.
Now that we've covered that, let's look at the real usability barriers in Linux today.
1) Fonts. Oh god... goodness... fonts are horriffic. Windows makes Linux on the desktop look archaic because fonts continue to look so awful. Unless you really know how to tweak your system, fonts look just terrible to your spoiled truetype user. Out of the box fonts need to improve by an order of magnitude from a visual perspective. Bring them up to par with Apple and you can compete. Bring them up to par with Microsoft and then watch people switch.
2)
3) Advertising. How can you start a revolution if you don't push it to the ignorant public. Gnome? KDE? Ubuntu? Debian? Fedora? What does that mean to ANYONE outside of the Linux community? Nothing. Again, Linux needs a large entity to push Linux on the public through advertising. Show people how easy it can be, and how it's ready for prime time (which it ALMOST is--see Fonts). Google's the answer here--honest to god. Microsoft killed Netscape by giving their browser away for free. Google can kill Microsoft by giving away Office and the OS away for free. Yeah yeah, Linux is already free... I know, I know. But it's not in the public eye, and Google can put it there. How about it--a Google Linux distribution that looks as good as OSX and runs on anything.
George Washington could've lived a more comfortable life as a magistrate to the British Crown.
For those late to the licensing meeting:
The GPL is designed to protect software freedom. Business and adoption concerns were secondary, if they were considered at all.
I used to be concerned about how popular GNU/Linux was. I thought it followed that development momentum followed popularity, and GNU/Linux had to be the standard. Now I realize that I just love the amount of freedom and development momentum the platform has already, *right now*, and I care less about world domination.
I'm sure there's quite a bit more "market share" to be had by GNU/Linux, but there's already plenty for me to and the community to thrive on. Apparently, it's also enough for a fairly robust business segment, as well. That's enough.
Business and user adoption is not the most important consideration to how "successful" an OS platform is. Try measuring it using the stick it was intended to be measured with.
I don't think it ever was about the licensing. Linux (similar to Lisp) is the "inventor's workshop" of operating systems. There's a lot of complicated, arcane looking pieces to it, and most of them are rarely used. It's not streamlined to user simplicity like other OSes. This has the effect of attracting the inventive types, and scaring away most other types of people.
The advantage though, is that Linux is like DNA. Even though most of the code is either unused or not understood by most people, it is a living history of all the profound discoveries made. Each one of those pieces gave someone an advantage over whatever else was out there, which was how the whole field got started. Should the environmental conditions be ripe for reconfiguration, and it has happened many times, then it's a lot easier to dust off those old features. The alternative to that would be trying to rebuild everything from scratch under crisis, and too much of that can lead anything - species, code, or operating system - to become extinct under that new environment.
Another thing messing up the tech industry is the insistence on paychecks and sometimes even health care. Seriously, software development is nothing like as far along as it would be if businesses could force all developers to work without giving them anything in exchange.
This is somewhat akin to saying that Microsoft's use of paid programmers instead of slaves impedes it more than helps it.
While they might get more or cheaper code with slave labor, there may be social goals beyond just raw dollars.
Similarly, the GPL has alway had goals in addition to popularity.
-Uberhund
Honestly, I did give OSX a 100% chance. I have no problem with different DEs -- for me, it's fun to try out different desktops and I've tried a lot of them. On my 4 linux machines, I run two versions of KDE and one of Gnome (2 kde machines, 2 gnome machines). I've fooled around with Enlightment a little and I've tried about every DE out there. It doesn't bug me to switch between Gnome or KDE or even fvwm. I can use any of them fine, though I'll have preferences of course.
When I got my Mac, I knew it would be different and I didn't have a problem with that at all. Truth is, I was excited about looking at the differences. My issue is that (at least for me) it is different and and not equal or better. I didn't try recreating my Linux user experience on the Mac -- howver, I did try to replicate my ability to work as efficiently, even if differently. What I found was that OSX is prettier, but for me, less efficient because of a few missing abilities. In OSX, I can ultimately do everything I can do in Linux, but just not with the ease and grace Linux provides.
I'm not one of those people afraid to learn new ways of doing things, but I am reticent to replace a better way with lesser way. There are some things Linux could take from OSX to be sure, but OSX could stand to borrow from the *nix world a lot more than it has.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Folks he is right.
We must unfix these needless shackles, shackles that hold back the worlds fastest growing operating system from being the
A poet who lived in Milan
Wrote poems which just would not scan.
He said "I do fine
Til I reach the last line,
then I cram in as many syllables as I possibly can."
-- posting anonymously because it isn't worth logging in for this
Okokok, assuming I agree that the GPL hurts Linux (I don't)...what the GPL helps Linux to provide is an alternative where freedom is valued. Linux is not an entity that needs to be helped or hindered. People are entities that need and can use help. Linux is a huge help to me. Stuck on stupid? Linux on the desktop is far more powerful for me than windows ever was. So, don'tuse it if you aren't prepared to learn or don't have time to learn and you already know another OS, otherwise, I would recommend it.
BenCurry.net
FYI, nearly 3/4 of software developers work in-house - they do not sell a boxed product for a license and never will. Yes, licensed software does absolutely nothing but get in the way for 3/4 of developers. Anybody who'se in this industry knows that just by asking arround.
Recently I created some software that interfaced with our companies hardware to make a very cool product. Investors decided that they liked it enough to put up big money to finance the project. If I had only closed software and tools to work with, and all it's restrictions, it would not of happened. IMHO, free software is all about commercial profit and anyone who says otherwise works for Microsoft or deosn't know what they're talking about.
Bread-eating, skiing, and using Amiga Notepad, coupled with patent and copyright FUD, have also caused developers and VCs to think twice before committing to Linux.... about the same amount.
I understand now, it's the GPL that's been holding Linux back! That's why (Free|Net|Open)BSD is so much more popular!
I don't think so.
Furthermore with RedHat's latest quarterlies I do not think there is any credence in the fact the GPL cannot make money either.
I think what is striking though, is the societies that the GPL inhabits, such as the US and Europe, and the kinds of software that is comming out of either one.
With Europe WAY in the lead.
I think that speaks volumes about Linux and the GPL in general, and of course the US software industries health.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The problem with the GPL is that hardware vendors that want to support Linux have to release their source code. There may be several reasons why they dont want to do this: 1. A competator can examine their code and find weaknesses in their product that they can show to potential customers 2. It gives your start-up competators all the code they need to get their software caught up to you overnight, and allows them to use your code in their products 3. It may reviel how you've implemented your part which gives your competators a chance to use that knowledge in the design of their part, saving them time and money These are serious problems, especially for small startup hardware vendors like the company I work at. So, you'll notice that companies are creating 'shims' that link with the kernel that load in their real code which doesn't need to be open sourced because it doesn't link with the kernel. Thus, we get around the GPL, but our schedules take a hit for it.
Exposé may be able to substitute for multiple desktops, but there's nothing on a Mac that can substitute for focus-on-pointer and quick pasting. And yes, I'm writing this on a Mac. It's a good machine (and I figured out how to turn off a lot of the useless eye-candy and did most of the customisations Tog recommends, which improves it quite a bit for my use) but in the end it's not really Workstation quality IMOP.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
n/t
Open Source lisences like the GPL are essential to keep it from being overly commersial and propetary.
Also, stop whining about Linux not conquering the desktop market. Its such a lame thing to expect. Linux is in the very nature more powerful, customizable and directed to towards a technical audience. That's its strong point! We don't want a playmobile OS to power the largest and most essential data cluster and connections point of the modern world do we? Linux/BSD excells in networking, clustering, and large scale deployment... Lets keep it that way shall we?
Some one would have to refactorize Linux into an operative system without a networked X-server system on top of a command line, and make it truly pretty with colourful round boxes if you'd want it to indeed take over the desktop market. 95% of the PC users are 40-50 y.o. dads and moms playing Solitair and reading cnn.com. Wake up folks.
Use Linux/BSD for what its meant to be used for, and what no other OS can match it at!
NB: Not flamebaiting here, as I do enjoy using Ubuntu Linux for my desktop, but I also consider my geekdom to be way above the average PC user!
When was the last time you used a BSD system? Generally speaking the only GPL programs in the base system are a handfull utilities here and there, and GCC. You better believe that once they can, the BSDs will switch to Tendra and away from GCC. OpenBSD has by far the least number of base-system GNU utils, FreeBSD the most. And still, the majority of the base system in FreeBSD is BSD licensed.
What a load of old bollocks. The GPL *is* the reason that Linux has been so successful. As an operating system it's not particularly well crafted or revolutionary in some ways - certainly in comparison with the BSD's, and even less so in the early days.
People started using Linux, and then adding to Linux, because the source was theirs and the GPL meant it would always remain so. They would always have the benefit of their contributions plus the added benefit of everybody else's contributions.
Just because the GPL isn't a perfect for every business model that could use a nice cheap OS like Linux, doesn't mean it isn't a very good model in itself.
I challenge anyone to give me one other good reason why Linux is more widespread now than any of the BSD's.
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
ZDNet ought to be even more successful than it is. On Slashdot, readers ponder the reasons why. For one thing: Paul Murray impedes ZDnet more than he helps. Ignorance issues, coupled with Linux FUD, have caused IT decision makers and IT management to think twice before referencing ZDnet. Slashdot readers also suspects that John Dvorak is stuck on stupid. Basically, ignorance issues on the part of ZDNet editors, about basic copyright,ethical and legal matters, caused some key business and IT leaders to back off ZDnet, while the general negativism of Linux reporting caused many of the individuals whose subscription and readership should have been driving ZDNet hit rates and access up has in fact driven them away.
Go work out that people who use Linux do so because the alternative is monopoly slavery.
The GPL protects the code and sticks two fingers up at the convicted monopolists and greed.
Long live the GPL, long live Linux.
rgds
Please... _please_ stop getting "news" about Linux/OSS from zdnet blogs... they're nothing, and have as yet been nothing, but inflamitory bullshit designed to increase adhits.
Now back to your scheduled flamewar.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Someone find this goon's 7th-grade English teacher and take away her pension!
I had forgotten how much cooler teenagers look when they are smoking. Oh, wait
...begs to differ.
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
If it weren't for the GPL, Linux would be nothing more than any other fringe OS out there, such as BeOS, BSD, etc, at least as far as its presence in the corporate world. The GPL exactly the reason why IBM can invest billions in Linux and yet keep it free for others. The GPL levels the corporate playing field and allows IBM to simultaneously benefit from the improvements of others and contribute to linux, for their own benefit. Other can benefit from IBM's contributions, but no one can take IBM's contributions and use them against IBM, as the BSD license allows. In short, it is the viral nature of the GPL that has made linux, for better or worse, what it is. Without it, Linux wouldn't even be uttered in the enterprise at all.
The desktop is the only segment where Linux seems to be failing. The problem is not the 'copy windows' approach. After all, there are many distros trying many different approaches and none have had a lot of success on the desktop.
The problem is that Linux's fragmentation and diversity are not helpful when selling to consumers. Some instances of this (diversity) have been good for innovation and development, and have not been a problem in the server and embedded spaces where the potential client is fairly sophisticated. On the other hand, the desktop wars (ie. Gnome vs. KDE) have sapped the energy of the community, slowed progress and cooperation, and given potential users the impresssion that Linux isn't ready yet. (One primary desktop and a bunch of lesser ones would have been ok.)
I personally blame Trolltech (though I'm a C++ developer), but I acknowledge that others will have the opposite perspective. But regardless of who is to blame, that is one of the biggest factors in Linux's lack of success on the desktop.
Wow, this comes up twice in the same day. Re-post from my earlier comment:
Finally someone that agrees with me. I listened to the hype for so long, and finally bought into it. It was an expensive purchase (Dual G5). I found OSX to be rather unintuitive, and I did give it time. It doesn't provide enough flexibility for me, though admittedly I'm not an average user. And no, things didn't "just work" in OSX. The machine was a lemon, to boot. Thank goodness for Apple Care.
Luckily, the fanaticism ensures a great resale market. I got nearly what I paid for it, and that's even after the latest G5s having been released in between. With the money, I'm going to build a new system for SUSE. And buy a 42" plasma TV. No, I'm not kidding.
There is no rational person who would question the fact that the GPL hurts Linux. Just like proprietary licenses hurt proprietary software and the BSD license hurts BSD licensed software. Likewise, the GPL is responsible for the success Linux has found in the way it has found it. Just like proprietary licenses and the BSD license are responsible for the success of those products that use them. Each license is a tradeoff. The BSD trades control for participation. Proprietary licenses trade participation for control. The GPL trades profit for liberty (liberty in the sense of "you are forbidden to remove this freedom").
Is it a good trade? Well, GPL software has a very small, but increasing, share of the desktop OS market. GPL software has a very large and increasing share of the small server OS market. GPL software has a small and increasing share of the large server OS market. I'd say that implies it is doing pretty well.
BSD software is also doing well, but not in the same spaces. GPL software is doing very well at the kernel and system level, but BSD software is (at least arguably) beating it at the applications level (OOo, Apache, Tomcat, etc).
Every license is inherently a tradeoff. Every license hurts and helps the software to which it is applied. You give up some rights and impose some requirements. Which bundle of rights and requirements you choose is a matter of what your goals are. The GPL is the right license if your goal is the imposition of liberty, and maybe the right license if your goal is participation. Which is the right license if your goal is market share? Pretty tough to say; BSD dominates the HTTPD market, GPL dominates the cluster kernel market, proprietary dominates the desktop market, but is losing share. If someone claims to have the one true answer to which is the best license for desktop market penetration, that person is either a fool, a zealot, or a liar.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I didn't take the time to read the comments, so I'm sorry if a million people have already made this argument. It's also a no brainer, not sure why we have to point this out.
:)
I think the intent of the GPL is to protect the user's, and the authors, rights, not the software
A better head line would have been " GPL Hurts Linux, but continues to protects Users"
Solaris has been Open (not OpenSource) for years -- open on standards, that is. The specs were there on http://docs.sun.com/ the whole time, yet the majority of the slashdot crowd did not have the wisdom to use it.
Moving right along, Solaris was also free for quite a while, and now it has also become OpenSource. Some may argue that not all of the source has been released yet, but it is being worked on. Meanwhile, I challenge anyone to show me another commercial SVR4, AT&T licensed UNIX that has been open sourced.
The entire Solaris platform is much more API/ABI stable than Linux. Solaris is cheaper than Linux precisely because of its API/ABI stability and forward/backward compatibility.
The price tag of $0 or FREE-AS-IN-BEER also helps too.
$0 is a decent price for Solaris -- the most advanced operating environment (not just system, but environment!) on the planet. I'll take that over Linux any day of the week, no questions asked.
And, from what Linux kernel developers have openly written on the kernel mailing list, Linux will *NEVER*, *EVER* have forward/backward compatibility because you get the source code to it and can recompile it yourself.
Check out the Linux kernel mailing list and you can read it for yourself, right from the horse's mouth.
The "mary had a little sheep" isn't original, neither are the "hickory dickory" or the "little mendel" ones, but some of them ("Old mother hubbard") are.
Its not too hard. Take any nursery rhyme or childhod ditty - I'm sure you can turn it around into something warped.
See, not hard to do an originalhttp://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/z/200506/pmurphy_hd.g if
How can you call anyone or anything else "stupid" when you look like that?
I would make the counter claim that it is only because of the GPL that GNU/linux has succeeded as well as it has. How long has Netcraft confirmed that BSD is dead? The BSD license allows big software companies to reuse code without contributing back to the larger community, and often without even an acknowlegement. The effect has been the use of a virtual army of unpaid programmers.
One large (unnamed) software company has even resorted to paying other companies to attack both GNU/linux and the GPL. That, and funding countless self-aggrandizing TCO studies that, were GNU/linux a corporate entity itself, GNU/linux would already have gone to court with said company with slander charges.
Just more FUD. Stop feeding the trolls.
Why does slashdot consider Paul Murphy's rantings relevant? The guy is a complete idiot.
You might as well make a news story based on the rantings of the crazy bag bag lady who stands on the corner and screams at people who pass by.
In america on the other hand, people are largely used to the capitalistic way of doing things: i.e. you earn money and you find someone who can sell what you need. Anything new (like GPL) that breaks this line of thinking immediately puts people on the defensive.
Neither GPL nor Linux prevents profits, examples are Redhat and to a lesser extent MySQL. Though it's not in Microsoft's league Redhat is making a profit. Businesses like IBM are moving from selling products to providing a service, they can "give away" software then sale service and support. Though it's a different economy it still offers the possibility of making money.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Bam Sookie!
I was gonna post a new reply and say:
Please, if the GPL were the problem, the BSDs would be ruling the roost. (Or does he think that even the BSD licenses are too restrictive/free? What?)
I decided to read and see if someone had already made the point, and Bam Sookie! You nailed it.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
Paper Plane Design 001 Video
Creative Commons BY-SA License
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
The BSD license allows big software companies to reuse code without contributing back to the larger community, and often without even an acknowlegement.
I don't really know for sure but it's my undrestanding that the BSD license requires anyone who takes BSD software and modifies it to acknowledge all previous software contributors and that it only allows the modification to be closed. Anyone out there who's used the BSD license can verify this?
One large (unnamed) software company has even resorted to paying other companies to attack both GNU/linux and the GPL.
That's not the fault of the BSD License, that's the fault of the one company. Other companies who use BSD software do contribute back, Apple has released Darwin under the Apple Public Source License (APSL) 2.0. For thier Safari browser Apple started with khtml and has contributed it's modifications back as well. Sometyme back there were a number of articles on /. about this with some complaining that Apple was returning a big mess of changes all at once. But the idea isn't to blame the actions of one or a few companies' on the license but on the companies.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Besides, keep in mind that only Windows is a moneymaker (and that is due to the monopoly in Office). No other OS makes a direct profit. Not even Apple, or any of the linux distros.
Perhaps that would change if Apple were to release the MacOS to other OEMs. The problem with this though is that if they do then they run smack dab into Microsoft.
FalconShould there be a Law?
windows already does the desktop office thing ok; in any area, getting a new system to replace an old system means the new guy has to be a lot better.
So, since linux desktop will never be a lot better then office windows, linux will never win by copying
If you look at the history of software, big changes occur when you get a new app that does something cool.
linux will be on every desktop when it has a new app like visicalc
This guy must be an embarrassment even for ZdNet. The crap he comes up with would be ignored if someone came up with it on /. and it should be ignored here, too.
Lets look at a few of his other posts:
Apple, insecurity, and x86 In this post, Paul comes out with gems like:
but the real killer is where he argues that the Power chip is more secure than the x86 because of some unspecified hardware difference: If you still have any respect for this guy, lets look at some more posts:Resurrection Time? In which our genius suggests reviving APL to make it easier to program multi-core CPUs.
Microsoft to buy Red Hat? Say it ain't so Don't even bother reading this, it is as stupid as the headlines sounds.
Huh? Mactel, for real? "Niagara rocks. You want low power use for a laptop?"
I could go on, but it is too tiresome. Just ignore everything he says and you'll be better off.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
what do you expect from the dotCommunists at FSF, GPL is a stupid idea that is aimed at demolishing capitalism in the software world. its a catch22 the more free software there is the less programing jobs there are. only BSD unices have had any success in the commerial world because of GPL. if GPL didnt close up the software and prevent people from extracting anything other then "use value" then linux would thrive. becuase economic value is locked up in GPL linux will only "thrive" amongst geeks and other hippies still living in moms basement. the freedoms in GPL are counterproductive, GPL will die in the long run.
the real use of open source movement is a democratisation of R&D. this is a pipeline to commercialisation, something GPL locks away as a non option. its time the dotcommunists learnt some basic economics and stoped being such ignoramuses.
There's something the anti-BSD folks forget. The GPL crowd borrows a lot from the BSD side because our license makes a BSD-->GPL transition easier than a GPL-->BSD transition. Some people joke that Apple is Microsoft's R&D department. Well BSD is the GPL's R&D department.
I have been reading alot about the future of LINUX and mainly the BS about windows vrs. linux. I have been trying to find a OS besides Windows to run and learn. It seems that the best thing about linux is the ideas of open source, reality states this is about all there is, IDEAS, It doesn't matter what OS, and I have checked a number of them, can be just downloaded and run. The wireless cards need drivers to work, fine it you know how to do It, and other things seem to keep poping up. I have re-installed XP nine (9) times in the last six (6) months of trying to use LINUX. I don't know what to really do it seems so I bought a number of books, POINT & CLICK the last one, with CD's and there is still things that just make no sense whatever. I always return to Window because I load it, it works. I have checked the linux forams of a number of distro's, but it doesn't make alot of sense when you really don't understand the questions to ask, even the questions to look for. I will keep trying to use it, LINUX, but it does get exstreamly frustrating trying and end up re-installing XP so you can even get on the internet. Also why doesn't a light distro have everything so you can just blow and go? I have 4,2 gigabyte hd and 160 ram. All I have been trying to do is find a OS that works, wireless, Open Office, Inernet, basics. Maybe someday someone will think of the older laptops and that some people don't need all the other stuff. Thanks, Beekers
Apple copied from Xeroc Parc
Microsoft Copied from Apple
Linux tries to copy Microsoft.
If you want to stay at the bottom
of the food chain - keep on copying.
As a *nix nerd and grammar nazi, I thing your sig might be the best thing I've ever seen, ever. You win.
That's why we're all sitting around here talking about BSD, and hardly anyone * uses Linux
* anyone in bizarro world.
Not much more to say than that...he's offering FUD at discount prices. All you can eat. Two for the price of one.
But seriously, there's nothing here. He's jumped on the same old anti-GPL train that has been going around for a while. Let's not give this guy anymore airtime...there's no value in his suppositions.
--rc
"Nope. The GPL allows them to do so without fear it will be used against them."
Only when the distribution clause of the GPL gets invoked. Nothing stops a company from taking IBM's contributions and using it as a competitive advantage indirectly. e.g. internally.
"Company X wants to take the card I wrote, stick it in their proprietary code, then sue me when I make a copy of their program? I don't think so, I'm not playing that game. The GPL levels the playing field- if they want my code, they can have it, they just have to give theirs to me as well. If tyhey don't want to do that, they can rewrite it on their money."
The thing that everyone's forgetting is that companies have been writing their own long before there was a free software movement or the GPL (remember why RMS started the FSF in the first place?). Tossing it out like it's some kind of threat is silly. They have more advantages than you especially in the "access to information" catagory. e.g. Nvidia chipset, Broadcom wireless, IP issues. e.g cross-licensing, ability to pay any fees (.NET)*
"GPL is a way of using copyright law as a weapon."
Proving once again the violent nature of humanity were everything is a weapon, instead of a benefit.
*And I haven't even gotten into the weaknesses of the Bazaar model when it comes to non-itch issues.
"Personally, I'm getting a little fed up with the anti-GPL griping."
The GPL isn't the problem. It's advocates are. IMHO I could care less if GPLers build their own "disneyland". It's when they come hat in hand and start demanding from the rest of the world, and then whine when the rest of the world doesn't want to play, that I start having a problem.
"I suspect the gripers of wanting to abuse code they didn't write."
Now you know how artists feel when pirates take advantage of them.
"People married to the commercial commodity model of software so successfully exploited by Bill Gates."
It's also exploited by shareware, nagware, and other kinds of *ware. besides there's nothing wrong with making money from software. Even GPLers have no problem with the selling of software (or so you all keep telling us every time "OSS will put programmers out of a job" gets mentioned)
"I have yet to hear an objection I find balanced. Most are just "I want more"."
A quality that's not unique to any group of people.
If only more people discovered the alternatives, it would both out-class the current desktop market, and put to death that Linux can do nothing on the desktop but follow Windows around. There is literally something out there for every single taste and kink. Of course, we're *all* stuck supporting Windows-clones just for the people who insist that every computer in the world must look, smell, feel, taste, and sound exactly like Windows or they won't use it...but I digress.
The biggest problem with Linux, which *might* be related to licensing issues are hardware drivers. Companies do not provide hardware drivers and this will become more and more of a problem, because increasingly, the internals of hardware will be protected by patents, copyright laws and licenses so that third party drivers are either impossible or illegal.
The question is: why do hardware vendors not provide drivers for Linux? My assumption is that this is not *only* because of a small market share of Linux. It is also because it is very hard to provide closed-source proprietary drivers. I am not sure what the legal issues are, but I suspect that the GPL prevents this to a large extend (depending on where in the system the driver would have to be included). This becomes an even bigger problem with stuff like DRM -- there is no way how Linux will be able to play music or movies (especially HDTV movies) in the future unless there is a way to get DRM and proprietary ways to protect content into to the OS. But as it looks, there is no way to do this which is compatible with the GPL.
For me personally all this does not matter really because I use my OS for different things. But for a large part of the consumer market ink printers, USB devices etc. have to work on their computer and they expect to be able to view their DVDs with it -- legally. I am not sure if it is possible to come up with a way to do this that is compatible with the GPL, but I must say I have a bad feeling about it.
As long as you're talking about the Linux (r) Kernel - yes, you're bound to GPL your code. But then it's practically a kernel module - and we all know binary kernel modules are evil.
On the other hand, if you use it via glibc which is LGPL, then you can release your binaries as long as libc is used as a shared library. But if you link in your binary statically, you are required to provide the object files (not the source) of the program so that anybody modifying the lib can relink it up and build a modded binary. ( how many here knew that ? ).
But I have some code that uses lt;linux/irda.h> - which is GPL. Thankfully the code is already GPL'd :)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
> ...until this degrades into a KDE vs. Gnome thread?
:)
There's no need, since WindowMaker kicks both their sorry asses.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"Paul Murphy is a twat, and so are his mates. Ignore them."
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The company I work for does an embedded system based on FreeBSD. The prototypes used linux at first, but sending out source code for the kernel is a pain that we didn't want to get involved with. FreeBSD is much easier because we don't have to worry about giving source code to anyone who asks for it. In the process of testing with FreeBSD we found a kernel bug, and submitted a patch. We may have done the same for Linux (If there was a bug that we found), but we will not now.
Note that you need to be very careful in reading the above. Our not using linux is not harmful to linux, but it isn't helpful either. It just is. My example is only where GPL is harmful to linux's market share, which is a very different thing than harmful to linux itself.
I think most of the linux developers will look at my example and say "I don't care at all what you do" (We are not paying them either way). A small minority will say "I dislike the GPL because it drives people like you away, but linux is better for me so I work with it anyway."
Are you really an AC when you have your email address there?
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
He'd like to get into the Linux market, but to do that he might have to use some GPL'code
Nobody have to use GPL Code!
He can just write his program for GNU/Linux like he writes his program for Windows or MacOS! The difference is that he has the option to be part of our community and build upon our GPL code. But that's just another option, an option that doesn't exist in the proprietary software world at all!
At the end just everybody have this additional option but nobody force someone to use this option!
Take this option and be part of our community or don't take the option, don't look at our code, don't use it and just write your own code like you would do it on windows, macos or every other os. There is no problem at all!
...but in the groupthink stakes, the GNU crowd reigns supreme, as always.
There are going to be people (a lot of people, actually) who aren't going to want anything to do with Linux until RMS and crew are booted off their pedestal...but as I've said before, I don't see it ever happening.
Thus, I can see Linux getting a lot of commercial/office use, as it already has been...and serverside, as well. The residential desktop however for the most part is not going to happen...because as the GNU crowd may have already noticed, the non-autistic demographic of the population really doesn't care about your opinions, and more importantly, they especially don't want you making your decisions for them. Trying to do that is what got Microsoft in the amount of trouble it ended up in.
Try reading Animal Farm, guys...and then think about Stallman. Hopefully, the parallels will eventually start to become apparent.
That's a fairly major problem when you come to change things.
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
I'd far rather have the freedom afforded me by the General Public License than see Linux's market share increase, if I had to choose.