Slashdot Mirror
"The Ultimate Argument Against Linux"
GroundBounce writes "osOpinion has posted an article which basically refutes all of the FUD against Linux but then contends that the FUD itself may be enough to keep it from succeeding. I don't agree, but it's interesting reading anyway. "
People seem to forget that the impetus for almost every great software project, whether commercial or not, is to scratch an itch. OS and Linux have and will succeed because they were written, not by a software company to make money (usually), but by a person who needed a specific task done for his/her job. Those people shared it with others so they would reap the benefits of someone else's labor, instead of coding the entire thing themselves.
Some of these saw other's itches and decide to scratch them for noteriety, altruism, or money. The ones who made their source open to anyone else who wanted to tinker with it are the ones that will ultimately succeed, because those software projects will be made to respond to a host of situations the authors have a need or great desire to see dealt with. No longer will 8-year old "features" be stuck in an office-product, they will be corrected into true features in a matter of days or weeks.
This is also why GPL-like licenses are generally better than BSD-like ones. The BSD licenses mainly appeal to the fame/altruistic type, the GNU-like licenses appeal to these folks as well as the money-makers (who use the product as a cost of business, not a profit maker), the money-strangled who can't afford proprietary extensions to their favorite tool, and the FSF people.
-- Tardigrade
You might have to make it available to them, but how manny employees are going to go around asking for source code?
what do you mean by "split a file"? Won't xcopy do this?
HP, IBM, Sun (and a few others) will roll through here on a regular basis and keep everyone up-to-date on their product lines, ask for concerns, offer solutions, that sort of thing. But nobody is pushing Linux.
The IBM reps will take out management out for golfing trips and such and generally treat them nice. I've never seen a 'Linux Rep' come on-site, and I suspect they don't have the budget to woo management.
But if the tech types were to push management into adopting the system, I really doubt that a manager would want to go out on a limb for it when there are plenty of existing solutions which work just fine... and they don't have to justify adopting a new system they are uncertain about themselves. [An "Introduction to Linux" kit for management would go a LONG ways with fact and vendors that can be contracted for support and purchasing.]
But getting Linux in the datacenter is more than just providing a great solution. That's only half the battle. You've got to SELL it to management. That's what Linux needs more of... marketing droids and sales droids.
True enough about OEM bundling, it did take both - in fact early versions of Word and Excel actually came with special run-time versions of windows that came up transparently when you ran the application so that it looked like a DOS application to the user. The good news for Linux is that the fact that OEMs like Dell are starting to sell preinstalled machines.
So what does FUD stand for?
That's the price of using the source code. If you want to use MS' source code you have to sign licensing and ND agreements. Which alternative sounds better?
Ultimate? Great! So does this mean we don't need to hear any more of them?
Or is this going to be like another Jack in the Box? They've produced an "Ultimate Cheeseburger," yet continue selling a variety of others, apparently "Inferior Cheeseburgers."
If Linux doesn't have a Long Term Roadmap
and MS has "visionary leadership", then I just
don't understand this:
1 - Linux has been focusing TCP/IP and the Internet since the beginning of the [Linux] times.
2 - On the otherside MS was focusing their own
network until 1995, and then was forced to move
to the Internet in a big hurry and messy way, before it was too late...
Where is the long term roadmap ?
Here you have a long term roadmap:
First you announce your long term roadmap:
to have a single operating system, designed for every purpose (W2K).
A few months later, according to your long term
roadmap, you just announce that you will supply
3 operating systems ( NT, 98 and CE)
"When's the last time you used duct tape on a duct?"
Had a leaky heater duct. Fixed it with - you guessed it - duct tape!
a guy at work asked me how can i sit in front of the computer that long. i asked him - how can he sit in the bar for 12 hours doing nothing but drinking beer and watching football?
-anubis
The eval version of SQL server wasn't what brought the site down. SQL server wasn't even in use. I'd be a bit more careful about who you call a moron. :)
: Richard certainly got paid for creating Emacs. Linus got paid for Linux.
... paid Stallman to create emacs. Now look at him? He is like a mad insane king sitting on top his lofty throne not having to have a real job.
: But they didn't get paid with money, they got paid with respect, adulation and other valuable intangibles.
Excuse me? Both RMS and Linus were paid with money.
Grants, fellowships, trust funds, college research funds
And about Linus, don't you think his kernel work helped him land his Transmeta startup job? Of course, and they even let him (I mean pay him) to still work on it. How I understand it is that it is part of his Transmeta job. Good move on Transmeta's job, if they ever come out with a chip they already have won the hearts of the Linux crowd!
So this tree hugging hippie crap that free software is all about peer respect and "itch scratching" is just that, crap. Somebody has to pay the rent.
Feed me, I will program for food.
...and one could argue that the company's computers are the Company's computers, not the employee's, and so internally distributing changes made to GPL'd company systems does not obligate the company to divulge source to employees, because the employees are not The Public...
...so, has any NT user failed to notice and install the Cygnus tools (bash-like shell, etc.)?
...or pay to use the MKS tools?
NT, as noxious as it is, does allow for SOME
sense of freedom from itself.
No, they were not paid directly for the products they produced.
Larry Wall got paid by Perl because he got it to do the work he needed done at the time. Everything else that has come after is after-effect, an extra bonus. He would probably even say as much.
Linus certainly enhanced his market value with the work and knowledge he's shown from Linux with kernel-level stuff. But at TransMeta, he's working on their stuff, whatever that may be, not getting paid directly to do Linux. Linus worked on Linux even when he wasn't being "paid" to do it.
Did RMS *really* get the grants, etc., to make Emacs, or to teach (thus allowing him to program on other things) or do something academic with it, and Emacs came out as a nice indirect benefit?
SUre, FUD killed the AMiga because Commode was
an incredibly easy target to pick at, like a Dodo bird or a Cocker Spaniel.
They couldn't have marketed Eternal Life (tm).
Re: MS Bugs...
Well, I was looking in the latest Delphi Informant. They're talking about some Win32 API calls for popping up common dialog boxes that aren't in Commdlg.32.
The API call they're exploring is SHBrowseForFolder.
The article goes into details about the documentation of it, how to use it, how it works contrary to the documentation for it to one degree or another, and in many ways almost opposite on Win9x vs. WinNT, and how they had to figure these things out almost by brute force.
Some of it could very well be intentionally introduced bad behavior to throw off competitors, because the MS programmers of course get the real deal and everyone else gets to figure it out on their own, but one can't also discount the effect of shipping out specs to distant groups of people to code, and then just testing the produced code against some test suite to see if it passes, with little integration testing, and MS just having teams of programmers around to just tie the pieces together. If Windows code were compared to something in the real world, I would think it would be most like the Winchester Mansion in San Jose. Sure, it's big, it's a mansion, but it's got so many wacked things in it...
Also is MS's self-imposed market pressure to ship code. Not ship working, bug-free code, but enough code so that when BG is demoing at Comdex it doesn't force a reboot (do these happen intentionally, though?) or any of the other marketing wonks to show off at demos. That's it.
Microsoft's long term roadmap is how to maintain
increasing stock prices, and increase market share in new markets so that the inevitable "required cost increases" (i.e., "need more profits") become easier to pass on, because they're the virtual sole source supplier.
Just look what Corbis is doing...
I work for the company that hosts OSOpinion.com, and have administrator access on the (yes, NT 4.0-based--I'm working to change that) server. Some moron installed an *evaluation copy* of SQL Server 6.5 on the machine (the same moron who chose NT for *all* the operations here) and it expired today, taking down the entire site.
:)
Sorry, it didn't get slashdotted, it got Microshafted.
You might have to make it available to them, but how manny employees are going to go around asking for source code?
It doesn't matter. GPL requires any kind of distribution to be redistributable under GPL, so if giving software for employee is distribution then it's illegal to put any restriction on further distribution even if no one actually intends to distribute it.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
And why isn't it TINSTAAFL (There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)?
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
/.ed ). I don't need to. I've seen it all before. People can say whatever they like, but the big guns ( the Fortune-500 companies ) have just about had enough of M$ [expletive-deleted]ing them for more and more money. They are ready to dump M$ ( the same way they dumped IBM in the late 80's (and yes, I was *there* when it happened)).
This is completly of topic, but what the hell...
M$ has become a master of FUD. The problem is, that's whats going to kill it.
His Billness has been dropping hints ( Read:FUD ) about M$'s "new and improved" 64-bit OS for the last 18 months.
I just love it. Whenever some PHB starts going on about Windows, I just say "...but ther's no point in wasting time developing win32 code, Bill Gates has already made it clear that M$ already has a 64-bit OS in the pipeline, so all of this Win32 code will just be legacy garbage code that we will have to maintain within the next 3-5 years and you know what *that* means...".
FUD is a two edged sword. Think about it. How many people have only just converted themselves over from 16-bit MS-DOS to 32-bit Windows? How do you think they feel about the fact that with W2K that they have to convert all of their Windows code to Windows NT ( an obvious attempt to force everyone to a common platform before forceing the transission to M$ 64-bit "whatever it's going to be called" ).
No, I haven't read the article ( it's been
Call me a hopless optimist if you like, but there is a change coming. M$ has already peaked, from here there is only one way for it to go.
Down.
Ignore the FUD. If you like Linux, then use it. Write code/test code/write documentation. Linux still has a way to go before it can become a contender in the desktop. Give it time people. It will get there when it's ready.
Where can M$ go? Nowhere. It's got 20 years worth of bad design descisions to carry with it. It's got 20 years of bloat and marketing "Whoo! Whoo!" to carry on it's back. I'll give you three guesses as to how portable cade will be between Win32 and Whatever64 - about as portable as betwwen VB 3.X and VB 4.X, which is about the same as from VB 4.X as to VB 5.X.
In other words - not at all.
Just my 20 years worth of cynisism gang.
P.S:"Beta?! This crap hardly RUNS!". Sorry for the bad grammer and spelling, but everything gets trashed is I use the "preview" button.
He's probably referring to commercial UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX, Digital Unix, SCO, AIX) and mainframe/mini operating systems.
TedC
Commadore killed Amiga. The only reason it lasted as long as it did is that it was way ahead of it's time, and people would put up with Commadore just to own one.
TedC
The apps were important to Window's success, but one thing that's sometimes overlooked is that Windows didn't take off until OEMs started bundling it with their systems. This happened in early 1990 when MS released Windows 3.0.
TedC
NT actually has most of the same features as the UNIX command line does, by extending the old DOS commands. However, because they added it on, it's clunky and ugly. ...and they still can't split a file. :)
:)
I personally like having multiple text consoles, but I like the graphical features in XFree86 when I have to use it (playing games, say
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
yep, it's NT...
I didn't scan port 21 (ftp) because that times out, it looks like their web service (80) keeps dying. That box sucks.
% exscan -q www.osopinion.com 25 37 79 80 110 143
exscan - v0.3 - By PolarRoot [pi9@hotmail.com] [http://exscan.netpedia.net]
QueSO - Remote OS Identification - By Savage
QueSO code has been modified and integrated with permission.
Scanning Host: www.osopinion.com [38.185.217.81]
Port 25 Open: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Service Running.
Data Returned:
220 wwmerchant.osopinion.com WindowsNT SMTP Server v3.03.0017/4c.adur/SP ESMTP ready at Fri, 26 Mar 1999 13:20:30 -0700
Port 37 Open: Time Service Running.
Port 79 Open: Finger Service Running.
Data Returned:
Error: Unknown user
Port 110 Open: Post Office Protocol 3 Service Running.
Data Returned:
+OK POP3 server ready
Port 143 Open: Interim Mail Access Protocol 2 Service Running.
Data Returned:
* OK NTMail IMAP4 server 3.03.0014 ready
Scan Completed Successfully.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Social change still takes time, however quickly information can move. People still change gradually.
--Evan Vetere
The FUD that that is created "no such thing as a free lunch" is purely based upon ages and ages of paying for goods. We are entering a whole new age, where people CAN give their blood, sweat, and tears away for free, and still make money in another form (documentation, support, et al). :)
The only one I really disagree with is "Why would anyone write good software and give it away free?" The people that will/do say this are those that also say "How can anyone sit in front of their computer for 12 hours straight?!? I cant stand it for 2 hours!" They dont realize that this is something we love. I personally say to myself that I get to go to work, rather than I have to go to work. Its a hobby that we're lucky enough to make $$ from.
-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
I see nothing in the GPL that makes an exception for employees to have less rights. I can't even see how you could have an employment contract that could prevent the employee from asking for the modifications and distributing outside the company.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
Development will be concentrated in companies like RedHat (with dubious motives),
Universities, taking on the character of other kinds of research, or
The government. (Which may not so be as bad as it sounds.) Ideally, I think writing (good) software should be recognized for what it truly is: an art form. Hence it should get federal funding like PBS, NPR, and the NEA.
National Endowment for Free Software anyone?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
It's easy to bag on something because it isn't what you're used to, or not exactly what you want it to be. Fact is that Linux, like life, is exactly what you make of it.
Want a roadmap? An interface? A program that does [X]? A simplified command line? Make one! (or have one made)
There is nobody but nobody restricting you or anyone elses freedom to do so. (You might attract a lot of ire if you forked the kernel, but no challenge to your right to do so).
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
So what you're saying is that you're an unpaid volonteer.
I'm pro-OSS, and a programmer, and I agree with everything you said. What makes you think I was trying to troll you?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Remember when it was called ''propaganda''?
No, you're right. The GPL allows you to do whatever you please in the privacy of your own computer. However, in the context of this article, what is said is that such private modifications can't be distributed and thus simply don't factor into anything. If nobody ever sees them, it doesn't matter if they exist or not.
Yes, I have. I have done things to make myself feel better about myself, to convince myself that I am a worthwhile human being. That feeling is the benefit I am gaining from the opportunity cost (and other costs) of my activity. Once again, everything has a cost and benefit
I will agree with you about economics being a very murky realm, but I have yet to see a good refutation of its main premises.
There is nothing more humerous than watching computer geeks discuss economics (I suppose watching economists code would probably be up on the list, but most economists are smart enough to know how foolish they would look :) If you think that RMS, Linus, and Larry Wall have not earned tangible economic benefit from thier work you are seriously deluded. RMS has received various grants and sycophantic followers to provide for him, Linus got a US visa and job at Transmeta, and Larry got a book contract or two. These are just a few of the benefits which were won by those individuals who were willing to pay the "opportunity costs" (that is an important word there for econ study into such fuzzy realms, please remember it) of writing code and giving it away rather than selling it.
Free software does have a price, and it is measured in standard units (dollars, euros, whatever) but you have to understand how the big picture works in order to see it in action. Even if someone does an activity for nothing more than personal satisfaction that is an economic activity; they have chosen to forgo doing something else (time is the only currency that really matters) and instead did something which gave them self-satisfaction and pleasure (comfort/pleasure and power being the major goals of most economic activity.)
In fact, there are whole sub-fields of economics dedicated to the analysis and explanation of mundane human activity in economic terms. All of these "intangibles" you describe can be explained as rational choices made for some form or another of personal gain. Sorry, but none of us are saints and, as always, TANSTAAFL.
FUD killed Atari, Amiga, Apple (almost) and other M$ competitors (Caldera, Be,Inc 'anyunixvendor' etc) will never be the same. Remeber back in the 80' and early 90's when you had many mainstream OS's to choose from? sigh :-)
oh well, eve tho' I'm forced to do windoze at work I can go back to some freedom of choice at home
I've been a multi-OS user for years. I've lived through and almost succumbed to the FUD at one point. I was that close to buying and HP windoze machine when Linux for the Mac became more than buggy junk and Apple became a revived company.
I'm happy with my dual setup of Mac OS and Linux, it works out perfectly for me. I'm also happily awating my NFR of OS X Server so I can give that the try out
...if you view it from a numbers p.o.v. Linus said recently that like 7->8.5 Linux users were out there. That's more than some OSes and for comparison when you consider that companies like Apple say there's 25 million Macs in use right now :-) Pretty soon I'll have OS X Server to play with and only 1/5 of my macs will have the Mac OS, my wife's! There's no way she's accepting anythng but Mac OS because all her very expensive music software and equipment runs on it :-) She'd kill me! I know I'm not the typical Mac user but there's a significant number of Mac users with alternate OSes out there.
and M$ say theres 50 Million win98 users that 7 million is a respectable number! I'd bet it's higher. Right now I account for 5 os those 25 million Macs and only three of them run the Mac OS. Heck, even one of the ones that does I still use to log into the linux box with and run PowerMach on so that's more 1/2
Wow, this has to be one of the fastest articles I've ever seen slashdotted. Must be running it off his 56k modem or something. Anyway, does anyone (hopefully) have a mirror for us readers who didn't make it to the site in the 30 seconds before it got trashed?
-mike kania
So much for software freedom.. demanding that you turn YOUR project into a GPL-polluted project.
This is the 1000th article on /. to have "I don't agree, but it's interesting reading anyway" in it!
If 90% of everything isn't crap, your standards are too high.
(no matter how poorly written)...is to put
"Linux" in its title.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
I loved it! Especially the last part... "people get systems they deserve"
This is pro-linux all the way! Basically what it says is that linux is a mature and stable platform and the only reason left not to use it is because you're afraid to, chicken! heheheh...
The article points out a key tenet of FUD - "there's no such thing as a free lunch". Almost everyone I've talked to considering linux has one burning question - what's the catch?
Linux has proven itself technically several times over. It is now battling social prejudices and entrenched corporate philosophies. As often occurs in such event, unless a significant industry event occurs, it will not progress much farther in! If linux is to gain widespread acceptance, it's community must produce a significant event which redefines the boundaries of the corporation and marketplace. Thus far, the closest thing is the the OSS movement itself - which now supports and develops linux.
--
Is anyone keeping track of the OS and httpd of sites that are /.'ed to death. It might make a nice addition to the report on the /. effect.
There have been cases where GPL code has crept into company projects that were not meant to go open source. This of course creates a licensing nightmare, because the GPL demands that the project be GPL as well.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Let me summarize the article:
Virtually all of the arguments against Linux have recently been refuted (no support, no apps, etc).
The only thing that can kill Linux is things like FUD, peoples unwillingness to adapt to a new platform etc.
Of course the article had many more words, but that's the gist of it.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
GUIs are good at simplifying COMMON tasks, they cost you in terms of flexibility and productivity, but most people don't realize that because they've never experienced the power that you have without the GUI.
An example: At the company I used to work for, we did a lot of EDI, the EDI was processed by shell scripts on HP/UX boxes, and they ran, launched by cron, unattended, at all hours of the day.
This company was bought out by another company that also did EDI, but on NT. They actually had a small group of people that did nothing but drag and drop and process files by mouse all day! The little they did have automated (on NT) crashed constantly, either due to SQL server or something else. In short, they created a real mess.
What's worse was that some of them suggested replacing our "outmoded" Unix based method with their method!
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
The command line in NT gives me a weird feeling, almost as if I should be shunned for using it. Like "Silly Unix person, don't you know you should be doing this by GUI?"
I don't know why this is, most of the serious NT admins that I have met swear by the command line.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
# nmap -sS -p25,80 -O www.osopinion.com |less
Starting nmap V. 2.08 by Fyodor (fyodor@dhp.com, www.insecure.org/nmap/)
Interesting ports on (38.185.217.81):
Port State Protocol Service
25 open tcp smtp
TCP Sequence Prediction: Class=trivial time dependency
Difficulty=1 (Trivial joke)
Remote operating system guess: Windows NT4 / Win95 / Win98
What does the first A stand for?
And why isn't it TINSTAAFL (There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)?
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
"Ironically, with a graphical environment very similar to Windows or the Mac, Linux's command-line and scripting interface will perhaps soon emerge as a major selling point for advanced users. Windows and Macintosh treat all users alike, irrespective of skill level, and do not allow users to acquire more control over their machines with increasing experience. Unix and Unix-like systems, on the other hand, "scale" extremely well with experience, rewarding advanced users with dramatically greater productivity.
This has been my pro argument for Linux for a long while. I like the power of unix and the amount of customization. But I often find GUIs too darned clunky and difficult to use for certain tasks. The best method is to open multiple shells in a window manager to do your work. The best of both worlds scenario.
But for those folks who like the pure point and click, it's available (or will be). I don't think one can ever argue against GUIs, but rather one can argue against getting rid of the CLI. That won't happen in Linux.
I have to work with NT at work and I very much miss the "scalability" to use more CLI than GUI. Alas, that will not happen in NT.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
My understanding was that the Amiga died because Commodore decided to fire its engineering department and milk the product for all it was worth until it ran into the ground. This is second-hand, but from a reasonably reliable friend.
Ten or more years ago, the Amiga was a wonderful system. It had the equivalent of a first-generation hardware-accelerated graphics card built into the box years before these became available on PCs, with a cleanly designed system architecture and a reasonably nice OS and interface. This was pre-Win3.1 (remember when 286s were cutting-edge?). Among home users, at least, there was a heated debate over which system (x86 or Amiga) was the more useful. PCs might or might not have had a slight number-crunching advantage, but there were more than enough nifty features on the Amiga to make up for it.
But, eventually, Amigas just faded away.
Funny, but the little command line input thing in KDE gave me that same errie feeling. Really ironic as I was just clicking around to see what stuff was and it came up on top of one of my shells.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
Yes, people will say these things and stay away for a while but eventually they will talk to someone who uses Linux or visit a friend with it and be converted. And unless something better comes along or gnume and KDE still aren't ready (very unlikely), they will be converted for good.
To counter cliche with cliche: If you build it, they will come.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
The mirror is no longer needed....
I contacted the webmaster.... Apparently He fixed the problem with the server .
It's a common misconception among on-economists that prices equates to money. Free software does have a price...
Nevertheless, economists are keen on the notion of "free market". What is the price of a "free" market, and who pays it?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
There is nothing more humerous than watching computer geeks discuss economics
There is somthing far more amusing, which is economists themselves discussing it. Face it, economics is not an exact science, and it has many more quacks than any other field of human activity.
Of course, all of your rationale implies that we do everything for a purpose, which I cannot agree with. Haven't you ever done something gratuitously?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
When I started using Linux 5 years ago, explaining to clients that I was using Linux was very difficult. It was hard enough to explain to them what the value of the WWW was, or how email could improve their relationships with their customers.
Now I tell people I use Linux and it is hard for me to avoid having to explain that it isn't like Windows where everything is done for you. That owning a computer isn't always like using an appliance... However I can also tell a client that my system is running a Linux server, that it has Apache, and thus that it is THE TOP OF THE LINE as a web host.
Furthermore now when I install a custom programmed machine controling someones exhibit, I don't have to explain that Linux DOESN'T mean that I am the only person in the world who can fix it, it means that a permanent installation can be PERMANENT.
I don't hear people responding to Linux with fear. Most people are curious, want to know whether it is worth switching to, and if there is value for them. When they bought their Windows machine it was because it was the only name in the game. The very notion that with the same hardware they can now have a choice is extrodinarily persuasive and always has been. The dual boot machine with no risk...
The basic fact is that the status of Linux as a FREE alternative would not make a difference to a first time buyer, or someone buying a new machine. No one calculates the cost of Windows. It is free cause it is on the machine when you order it. To switch and actually PAY for another OS is to much trouble.
Linux has the advantage of taking away that cost, and allowing a user to TRY IT. Anyone who is frightened of it or doesn't trust it has THAT choice.
I remember when the DOS users pshawed the Macintosh. A Windowing interface was too clunky, they were so fast with text only that it a mouse was a hindrance. I still don't understand why Macintosh doesn't have more keyboard control. It seems so sensical. Now adays, they say, you can't have a CLI it is too complicated. True enough, the GUI did make machines accessible to people who can't remember how to do things or read manuals. But to talk about the GUI for an OS being the judgement of usefulness is a joke...
I don't think that anyone is scared of Linux but people who have a stake in its failure. Everyone else sees it as part and parcel to a world in which a 300 dollar PC can do everything you ever wanted. Back when I was a teenager the C64 was like that... We are FINALLY back into a world where the cheap computer isn't a real compromise. As long as Linux works on cheap commodity hardware then in the world of the PERSONAL computer, Linux will succeed in offering its one great value... ****FREE**** CHOICE
Every mind can be changed, give it time.
As much as people say that "UNIX is 20 years ago technology"
In twenty years we will hear that "Windows? God, thats an old piece of crap"
(today it's a new piece of crap)
The current hype, is in favor of Linux,
and it leeks into people's minds,
They begin to question Microsoft.
No matter how "I'll always use windows" drones act,
they won't use windows, they'll use what everyone else is using,
may it be windows, may it be BeOS, may it be Linux.
Yes, I admit, there are some people that wait until I say "god I just had to recompile a kernel",
and say "I told you windows is better".
(saying "how many BSoD's have you got while i compiled it" shut them down for awhile)
they will fade.
Fashion comes, fashion goes,
but even if it's not trendy, Linux is fun to use, and has a warm place in our hearts.
---
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
What else needs to be said?
Thanks man! You're such a doll.
Why? I have no idea. Maybe that is the reason so many people act like idiots. I try to respect everyone, and I get better service that way.
The problem here is people will take both money and respect, and then forget about the respect and go for the money. MS is being killed by the lack of respect companies and people have towards them.
If you really want to shock a freeware author, send him money. Not much, but just a few dollars with a note saying thanks that you keep your software free. It seems paradoxal, but it helps.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
Remember when it was called ''propaganda''?
FUD is a subset of propaganda. There are lots of types of propaganda that are not FUD. Microsoft, like most other companies uses the other types of propaganda in their advertising and PR. Not every company uses FUD, and of those that do some rely on it more and/or are better at it than others. IBM was the past master of FUD (the term was repudately coined one of IBM's mainframe competitors in the 70's). Microsoft relies heavily on FUD, but their record in using it successfully seems to be weaker than IBMs was.
So what does FUD stand for?
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
A particularly effective (if not properly countered) form of negative propaganda.
As for the big event that can make the shift to Linux stronger, I think the release of Windows 2000 will be a cusp. If Microsoft can actually deliver on its promises (this would be a new thing for them), then they be able to push Linux back out the door. If Windows 2000 prooves to be robust and stable, then much of the argument for Linux may dissapear (except for the noteworthy price difference).
If on the other hand Windows 2000 is a big flop, and gets drowned by its own complexity, then Microsoft has nowhere to go. If it flops, it would be years before they could take a different approach and by that time its too late, and Linux will continue to spread like wildfire.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"Therefore, far from stability being a lucky accident in Linux, it is a commonplace feature that is taken for granted in most mainstream operating systems. It is only Windows and the Mac that are aberrations." So, exactly what falls under mainstream OS if he discounts WINXX, MAC/OS and Linux? Surely you all aren't using IRIX are you?
There is a big difference between mainframe and mainstream... WinXX is THE mainstream OS currently. What, over 80% of desktop comps run some version of M$ OS
Secondarily, so long as Microsoft has to support the Win95 legacy, I do not believe that they can deliver robustness and stability. I've used the C++ libraries in MFC off and on (preferably off) for about five years now, and while they have improved, in my book, the whole construct is bad. In contrast, both Gnome and KDE are improving rapidly, to the extent that I expect BOTH to pass the Windows API in terms of stability and usability within the year.
My guess is that the catch-fire point for Linux as an operating system for "the rest of the world" would/will be if Inprise (Borland) and Symantec choose to release their compiler and IDE environments in Linux, with effective porting tools for legacy apps developed under their previous tools for Win32. I would also predict a "catch fire" response if Lotus were to release it's top products for Linux platforms prior to Win2000's sliding release.
This brings me to my main thought which is that it doesn't matter "if Microsoft can actually deliver on its promises..." All that has to happen for Linux to move up to #1 is for RH, Caldera, Suse, etc. to be ready with a better quality array of basic consumer software MS operating systems will start the slide into irrelevancy which they deserve, as at that point I would expect virtually all the meaningful hardware and software companies to abandon Redmond because of their blatant monopolistic ugliness.
I (and at least 8,000,000 others) do not believe that MS will EVER be able to "push Linux back out the door."
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Yup. Linux CANNOT go away, and if we want to use it, we will always be able to. If Microsoft totally scares away ALL comercial interest in Linux among corporate users, OEMs, and application vendors, and if all the big names in liberated software died today, if no one in the press ever noticed it again, Linux would still be here and people would still use it and improve it. So we might be worried that Microsoft will keep "the Linux experience" (whatever that means) out of the hands of the masses, but we shouldn't worry too much, because no one can take Linux away from us.
The CLI doesn't make things easier. For your wife, by herself, to do what you did, she would have to learn quite a bit. A decent CLI can automate things, which is GREAT, but to say that is easy is tantamount to saying that programming is easy.
It is definitely easier, though, to automate with a CLI than with a GUI. Under a GUI, you have to worry about more than text; you have to worry about when to click and where to click. A window might take longer to come up than it did when you originally tried to automate the task. A window can be resized, or moved, which makes it nearly impossible to determine where the pointer should point.
Anyway, given that little disagreement over language, I definitely agree that it is easier to automate tasks using a CLI than a GUI.
demanding that you turn YOUR project into a GPL-polluted project.
The project would not be "polluted" if they had not first chosen to include GPL code. In order to include GPL code, you MUST agree to the licensing terms. If they did not understand the licensing terms before they began including the code, that makes them stupid. The terms are very clear and available for all to see.
That's one possible interpretation of the situation. But consider this - Did the employer "distribute" the software to the employees? Or did the employer merely install the software on all of his/her computers, and then permit the employees use the computers? It's a subtle distinction, I know, but that's the kind of thing a legal decision would hinge on.
So I guess here is the question I would ask: If I own a computer, and I install GPL software on it, and I permit someone else to use that computer, does that constitute distribution to the other person under the GPL as it is currently written?
I know that if I modify the source code and fail to share those modifications, I violate the spirit of the GPL, but I'm not sure I violate the letter of the GPL.
I believe you are correct; you only have to provide source code if you redistribute your changes. Making changes does not force you to share those changes. Otherwise, you'd be in violation of the license the instant you inserted a single space into the source code and recompiled it on an non-networked computer.
However, it is unclear to me whether or not internal distribution is considered distribution. In other words, if a corporation, which legally is a single individual, puts a modified version of GNU/Linux on all their computers, are they then required to let their employees have the source code and redistribute it? Would installing GNU/Linux on a system that another individual will use be considered distributing it? I don't think so, but the license isn't clear.
I don't believe you. I can't believe you. Something like this is too unreal. It's just wrong!
Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying you're a liar. I'm just saying that this is so incompatible with my worldview that it cannot occupy my thoughts. It would crash me. I become visibly irritated when I think about it. I picture this group of poor saps, ordered to drag and drop all day and I shudder. I thought data entry was bad. [shivering]
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
I read it right after it posted, saved it from my cache to my server. Hopefully my pair.com server space won't get /.'ed either:
http://haughey.com/linux.html
This article mentioned that several times that free software refutes the time-honored belief that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." This is very wrong. Free lunches don't exist, and never will.
It's a common misconception among non-economists that prices equates to money. Free software does have a price, but it's not measured in dollars, marks or yen.
Richard certainly got paid for creating Emacs. Linus got paid for Linux. Larry got paid for Perl. And they got paid full worth according to the value of their software. But they didn't get paid with money, they got paid with respect, adulation and other valuable intangibles.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Cant read the article, guess we /.ed the server.
But frankly, I could give a rats ass what people say about Linux.
I USE IT BECAUSE I LIKE IT.
I will continue to contribute in whatever manner possible because I want others to like the same things I do. If Linux goes away as yet another flash-in-the-pan, I wont care. I WILL STILL LIKE IT. I will continue to use it until I no longer LIKE IT. Then I will find something else I like.
Maybe that is too simple for some. But I have been in this game way too long to use something just because it its the most popular or has the best "reputation". If it didn't work FOR me, I would use one of to the other choices out there.
**** Sworn to Fun, Loyal to None. ****
...Is that the CLI can often make things much *simpler*. My wife publishes a newsletter for her business each month, she was using WordPerfect (on Linux of course). Each time she would have to paste in new images and re-arrange things manually. I ported her newsletter to LaTeX (using LyX). Now she just enters the text in a simple text file, puts in the list of images, and types a single command to run a script which awk's everything together and prints out the newsletter. Preparing her newsletter now takes about half the time it used to with a graphical wp.
... Why didn't fear and uncertainty kill Windows before it became popular? Remember that Windows languished for some time before it took off, and it only took off when certain applications (mainly Word and Excel, *gag*) created crirical mass. FUD can be overcome if critical mass is achieved and other apps appear. The Amiga may have come close but never garnered that critical mass, among its other problems. The Mac did, and Linux has in server space. Nobody knows for sure, but I think Linux will get there in desktop space - it just may take more time because Linux doesn't fit long-established corporte models.
Split breaks a single file into several files based upon simple rules (given on the command line of course), xcopy copies entire directory trees. They're pretty different.
True in a sense. But I would still say that command lines can be thought of as making things easier - it's just that like most other tools people use, they only make things easier if you take the time to learn how to use them.
That said, it's true that not everyone will be able to become proficient at it, but by having the capability available, it makes it possible for one person to automate something for another, which in effect has made that person's task easier even thought they didn't know how to do it themselves.
I think the author may have run across something unintentionally. He says, "...anything less than 100% compatibility is not acceptable, so the task is not easy, considering also that Wine must emulate Windows bug for bug to display identical behaviour." If Samba can essentially replace NT in a Windows network (or almost) then the biggest problem left is replacing the workstations/desktops that have all the apps windows users are used to. This is where the author may have run across Billy's evil secret (rather clever, I might add). All the bugs in MS products could be there intentionally to thwart the efforts of WINE (or anyone else wanting to emulate windows) so that only a buggy emulator could replace a buggy OS to run buggy apps. Pretty clever twist there, I do believe. But, then again, it's just a thought, and what are those worth?
Before you start throwing flames keep in mind that I'm mostly just trying to be entertaining here, not really looking for any new MS conspiracies (I believe there are enough of those without my help).
>They don't realize that this is something we love. I personally say to myself that I get to go to work, rather than I have to go to work.
Heh... work for me consists of a bunch NT servers I am responsible for maintaining; I don't get to play with the 3 AIX machines =( So often I find myself wanting to stay home and tinker with Linux (I am relatively new to it, first installed in December 98), poking through it, learning it (partly in hopes to get to work with the AIX servers at work)... so, I guess until I get something else to do than pray over NT servers for deliverance from the "Mighty Blue Screen of Death"(c), I guess I'll want to stay home more than go to work.
As for the rest of you post... right on! I mean, I can say the same about people who watch the NASCAR races... after all, how many times can you watch a mid-sized car you'll never own go around in circles (or oval, or whatever the track configuartion is)? I can't stand it for 2 laps (guess I got a short attention span with that).
-G.
>I don't think free software will stay in the
>hands of purely unpaid volonteers forever.
"Unpaid volunteers"?! It's all you think programmers with free time are? Troll!! I don't try to understand women, and would never try to understand programmers/geeks. Yes we do work for 8 hours in front of a computer, and when we get home what we do? More computer time!
If I help develop open software it's not just because I'm a "volunteer" for the open source movement, it's far more than that. Sometimes just plain curiosity:
- "let's check how this dude did that function" Hey, it's wrong, if I change this two lines of code the routine will be a lot faster. And let's write an e-mail with thanks to the author for this great program and with this code correction.
Sometimes is the "and if". You're using a program, ang think: "AND IF the program could do X thing automatically?". Then you open the code and implement some feature that the author didn't planned/needed, and voila, a better program.
And once a year, you use a program and it doesn't work with that videocard or HD driver, then you strech-a-itchy and make the thing work.
And a lot more different reasons can make someone collaborate with the authors to improve a program, because it's fun, because it's cool, because have nothing to do on sundays, and none of the reasons above are related to money.
[]s
Mauricio
True, but the article was talking about the potential (or lack thereof) for someone to create proprietary extensions to Linux, distribute them, and then usem to gain a Microsoft-like hold on the system because people were stuck using the features that they had no code for or control over. The GPL insures that this will never happen.
No, the author states that nobody would want to modify Linux to distribute their own proprietary derivative. You certainly can modify it for internal use without releasing the source code, but something that is only used internally doesn't have much chance of affecting the community as a whole. As you say, the GPL prohibits the distribution of such a version without also distributing the source.
Well, code used internally at big Internet sites like Yahoo and MSNBC affects the community as a ./'ing MSNBC and Yahoo ... what the server impacts end users.
whole, even if the code never sees the light of
external day. Just look at the different impacts
of
As I understand it, if the employee has the right to take the binary home with her/him, that employee has the right to take the source home with him/her. I think in general, the employee would not have either right. The right to the binary and the source belongs to the company. The company has no obligation to release anything to anybody. You can sell a modified GPL program, but the recipient has the rights to source and is free to modify, sell or give away the program, subject to the GPL. You cannot even give away a modified binary-only without making the source available.
Realistically, you want to send back to the community any bug fixes or generally useful extensions. So much easier the next time around. Anything proprietary^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H private goes nowhere further. The employees have no more rights than the general public.
I think the key to understanding it is that the company itself, not the employees, owns the binaries.
The above opinions are my own. GPL has no responsibility for them.
Open Source software AND its data will live beyond the 'company' that produced it.
.
Think about it. I create a Program X (say a database) if I stop supporting it, the customer will still be able to modify/update and use that product. I make my money supporting it because I am the one most knowledgable about it.
It also allows the customer to have safer data. (done any data conversion between systems?) I have converted data for many reasons including: version/hardware obsolescence, Y2K/programming issues.
Open-Source also means Open-Data
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
its quite interesting.
....ie dont hold on to it beyond its used by date.
I am a java programmer and web developper. (eg http://www1.loom.net.au/home/fish/ )
I dont know all that much about inner workings of OS's, and I have never used Linux or even seen it on a box in RL.
Yet I am about to tackle it. I am setting up a home server , Linux & apache.
what convinced me of this?.... 3 things
1. sick of Microsoft's patronising attitude.
2. Astonishing level of support potential from the linux community
3. A very apparent "love of labour" which effectively removes the need for any enforced "quality control" and (to me) garanties a quality product.
The best thing the Linux community can do is DISPLAY its labour of love, it is very endearing (especially in an over-capitalist society) DANGER : dont become "Mac dags"
The bulk of the PC using public are sheep, they'll go with whatever has the numbers.
M$ has demonstrated the power of markting intelligence.
in a MARKETING vs LOVE OF LABOUR battle, if the love of labour doesn't win then I'm stuffed!
just PLEASE dont swap "love of labour" for "M$ hating"
its about Linux not M$
Intersting point... Now, to abstract it a little further, what about a generic 'user' and a modified GPL net service?
e.g. What if a company modifies a GPL'ed web server and makes that server available to all of us on the net. If one of us asks for the source code, do we legally have a right to it? I wouldn't think so, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv.
I read the article earlier today, and I think that the author doesn't understand the GPL. Either that, or I don't understand the GPL.
The author states that no company would want to modify GPL'ed code because the GPL requires them to provide the source to the public. However, isn't this the case only if the software is distributed? e.g. If a company wants to modify the linux kernel for internal use only, and does not try and sell it or make it available for public use, then they wouldn't have to release the modified source, correct?
Someone please whack me back into line if I'm way out of it...
Your post reminded me of the first time I installed GNU/Linux. I kept waiting for something to pop up and say, "You have not registered for xxx. Please call 1-800-big-soft with a valid credit card number."
It IS a new concept for many people.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Even if Win2000 was a solid OS, the price difference is noteworthy (as you said). I think a lot of people will still be attracted to a robust server OS that costs MUCH less than the $900 MS charges for a fresh NT license.
:-)
Another factor is the Unix-like heritage of GNU/Linux. There is already a significant number of sysadmins who know how to make the OS sing. Why spend the money on an MS-sponsored training course to learn a new OS that will change in 2-3 years anyway?
Geez, I'm getting partisan lately. I need to go back and re-read some TechNet, MSDN and Windows Magazine articles.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
This may be off-topic, but I couldn't help throwing in my $.02 as a Java developer.
I've found GNU/Linux to be an outstanding platform for development. It just "feels right" to programmers. For Java, I think the Blackdown Organization has done an absolutely OUTSTANDING job with their JDK (haven't tried others).
Another factor for Java developers to consider is Microsoft's attitude towards Java. While MS supports Java, I think they clearly do so against their will. I also tend to believe claims that MS has attempted to sabotage Java.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Much respect, AC.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
No - the idea is that source follows binaries. If you access to the binaries, you must be allowed access to the source. If your server doesn't provide its users with the binaries, they don't have to provide the users with the source.
Thanks for the link. That first server was well and truly nuked by the /. effect.
Coming from 6 years of being a Windows developer\user and reading this article and others they have certainly opened my eyes to the path that Linux is taking and the possible benefits. I can't help but to feel that i will be left behind as a developer if i don't embrace this OS. Besides, who isn't getting sick of Windoze continuing problems, i seems to spend the majority of my development time looking up bugs and solving problems stemming from the OS and/or products available on it and finding that 1 poorly documented patch/update/work around that will probably solve my problem. The difficulty sems to lie in convincing the powers that be (large corporations)that there is merit in going down this path. I agree with the article, but it's gonna take time for us Windoze developers to come on board, not just because of the closed minds, but also the learning curve. I dare say there are many more windows developers per capita than Linux developers, many of us are reluctant to start using Linux and recommending solutions on this platform simply because we are intimidated by it.