only with fundamental changes
by
hawk
·
· Score: 2
would your scenario be possible. Linux installations offer a choice of what to install; it wouldn't be a matter of uninstalling it, but of not choosing to install it in the first place.
Caldera is not interested in selling linux. They are coming up with the distribution so that they can sell their regular products. They are doing exactly what netscape should have done two years ago--spin a linux distribution to bundle with the browser, and contribute the work to finish wine.
It is quite clear from caldera's statement that if there's actually demand for it, that they'll sell their version of linux separately.
Also, given that they're going to be using debian as a base, they will be thoroughly infected with the GPL; only completely independent portions that they design could possibly be proprietary, and the rest could be sold or otherwise distributed by anyone else.
I'm really not sure why I'm bothering to explain this, as I'm pretty sure that this is just a troll . . .
If Microsoft GPL-ed Windows 2000 tomorrow, and decided to keep Word proprietary, you'd still think it was an improvement. Look at Corel in that light. Corel is recognizing that infrastructure should be Open Source but you can make some money off of proprietary applications that run on that infrastructure as long as you don't make it impossible for Open Source applications to fill the same niche. They will be constantly competing with Open Source applications, so their software had better be incredibly good or it won't sell.
apt seems pretty cool, but what about major changes in packages. Quite frequently in the linux community a new software package has a new config file (etc) that is not compatible with older versions. If apt updates packages without user input does this not risk the integrity of the system?
Usually you will be warned that the configuration files do not match, and whether or not you want to cancel the installation. At that point, you can put a hold on that application, and apt won't automatically upgrade it for you if you move to a new version of the distribution.
There are sometimes scripts that will convert data over, or there are configuration scripts for the new version, so you can set it up yourself.
For the most part, Debian does its best to let you know what's going on so you don't accidentally upgrade to a package you can't use because the configuration has changed.
"X was broken in both LinuxPPC 4 and in YellowDog Server 1.0 after install on my iMac..."
Just to set the record straight. The iMac is a pretty new machine, only 1 year old.
The iMac uses different technology in it display / graphics card, so of course their will be issues.
Heck, The iMac didn't even work until October 1998, getting USB drivers have been a pain in the ass also.
Apple hasn't gaven us much help at all, and the systems are pretty complex.
LinuxPPC R4 was realeased before any support of the iMac in Linux, so of course it going to require a special kernel and patches and stuff to make it work.
Yellow Dog Server 1.0 has some problems with X since it is a new kid on the block (give it some slack), and the default X Server, Xfree86-3.3.1 is also a new kid on the block. (Older Powermac systems used Xpmac, a autoconfiguring server, that plug and play basically). Xfree86-3.3.1 is vastly better, but it needs work on the powerpc to up to snuff. This is one reason for LinuxPPC R5 delay, JCarr has been busy playing with, making it more user friendly, and plug and play. (No playing with crap like configuration files).
I hope you now understand.
Thanks,
Andrew B. Arthur aka AArthur arthur99@global2000.net
I, as an advocate of Open Source software, have no real problem with commercial, closed applications. The real benefit of OSS, especially in the beginning, is the availability of a commoditized OS so that the applications we want to run aren't tied to any particular distribution or company.
As we progress, the applications that are best expressed in the open source method will be, leaving only a very few, probably highly specialized apps as closed.
I we want to appear to be a coherent community then we must hold all Linux distros to the same standards that we attack MS under, if not then we are nothing but hypocrites and fantics.
I don't think this is as big of an issue as you make it. It is one of the strengths of Linux that a distribution can be tailored to suit a particular scope or purpose, without diluting the concept. If a bundled app is such that it will only run on one particular version of Linux, that would be an issue, but it seems to me that kind of bundling would seriously backfire.
It is not the presence of commercial software that I have a problem with, it the the presence of commercial software that is so strongly tied to one company's OS that you no longer have a real choice.
In past postings, many here have stated that they would be willing to purchase closed commercial games for Linux. Why then would there be an issue with closed commerical word processors, et.al.? There are open alternatives to virtually all of these, and therefore, we have a choice, and choice is what it's really about.
Don't get me wrong -- I love Linux. But Red Hat's setup really really sucks. Besides that, and I understand why, but the hardware support sucks, too. I bought a whole computer so I could run X (my previous one was a Dell with an onboard video controller). I finally got all my hardware working in Linux a couple days ago, after using this computer for about 2 months. I had very bad experiences with RH5.2, but 6.0 has been great. I think Red Hat has finally matured. Today, I wen't to my friend's house, and in about two hours, got his whole system working (he'd already installed the OS, but not configured it). My fairly computer-illiterate mom, who is a lawyer, will be using Linux when she finaly buys a new computer this summer, replacing her Altima 1 286 notebook with character-based monochrome screen and parallel-port, single-speed CD-ROM. This because of Corel's porting of WordPerfect. I have been using Enlightenment for a while now, and I think that since DR 0.15, it is very usable. KDE is probably even more usable, but it's ugly. However, it has better applets bundled (not to say that there's anything preventing you from running Qt apps in Gnome). I used KDE for a while until DR 0.15 came out, because 14 was a bitch to use. Now, though, I think it's pretty good. a couple things still bug me, like a few flaws in the Gnome panel, and the way Midnight Commander sucks, but it's very usable, on the whole. I am not hacker, and my computer is not a server. I am a nerd, though, and Linux is my toy, but that doesn't mean I can't get work done in it. I run WordPerfect, print, use the Gimp, play MP3s, and do everything else in it except run Terragen, Alpha Centauri, and Quake 3 (I know there's a Linux port, but I don't want to download 22MB again).
I applaud Corel's efforts. I hope they pour considerable resources into installation, because that is one of the few places that Windows has a huge advantage over all Linux distributions currently. Glad to hear they're planning to join the LSB movement. Corel's developers on the Wine project have contributed a huge amount of code to the effort. Looks like Corel is going to be a great Open Source citizen. I'm looking really forward to seeing their apps on Linux, too!
Corel support Open Source, no really they do !
by
flesh99
·
· Score: 3
Will Corel release the source code for its major applications? While Corel recognizes the value of open source development in many areas, and is actively participating in a number of open source efforts such as Wine and development of KDE, the company has no plans to release the source code for its major applications. Corel's major applications contain many features that rely on code licensed from other vendors, with whom the company has a variety of contractual obligations--one of which is to keep their source code private. Corel could not release its application source code without a tremendous amount of development work to isolate the licensed code, and this work would have a significant impact on release schedules.
Corel seems to be jumping on the Linux/Open Source bandwagon as long as it doens't have to release it's "real" products as Open Source, or so that it doesn't effect their release schedules. On top of that they sya if they did then they would not be able to release all of it, I personally doubt these claims and say that Corel should do all or nothing. We are screaming at MS for not releasing their code and then Corel can say this and everyone just accepts it.
Will CLD be available as a standalone or bundled with Corel's applications? Corel is still in the process of determining whether CLD will be bundled with Corel applications only, or if it will also be available as a standalone product. Corel's objective is to give as many desktop users access to Linux as possible and if there is a demand for a standalone product, the company will certainly investigate the opportunity.
They are actually considering bundling, isn't that one of the reasons we are pissed at MS, or is it OK for a Linux distro to do it ? IMHO we should be upset that they are considering bundling with only their product and not offering a stand alone. I we want to appear to be a coherent community then we must hold all Linux distros to the same standards that we attack MS under, if not then we are nothing but hypocrites and fantics.
Damn it, doesn't look like there will be a PPC distribution for a while. Isn't one of the big "advantages" of Open Source and Linux that it's easy to port things to different platforms? If so, why does it seem that Linux is so x86-centric? A lot of companies that release commercial software for linux don't even bother making a PPC binary, even though it would probably only take them a day or two...
The PPC linux distributions are also a big pain in the ass. X was broken in both LinuxPPC 4 and in YellowDog Server 1.0 after install on my iMac... Linux may be doing well on x86, but it has a long way to go on other platforms...
If Corel continues to operate with this level of candor and forthrightness in addressing issues they will be well-received by software connoisseurs of among us... I hope it continues, because such an attitude will only benefit the environment generated by Linux and open source.
This is not embrace and extend
by
HarpMan
·
· Score: 2
If Corel Office only worked with the Corel Linux distro, that would be embrace and extend -- lock people into the distro just because they want the office suite. As long as the office suite runs on all distros, which is their stated plan, there's no danger of that.
Slashdot Mirror
would your scenario be possible. Linux installations offer a choice of what to install; it wouldn't be a matter of uninstalling it, but of not choosing to install it in the first place.
Caldera is not interested in selling linux. They are coming up with the distribution so that they can sell their regular products. They are doing exactly what netscape should have done two years ago--spin a linux distribution to bundle with the browser, and contribute the work to finish wine.
It is quite clear from caldera's statement that if there's actually demand for it, that they'll sell their version of linux separately.
Also, given that they're going to be using debian as a base, they will be thoroughly infected with the GPL; only completely independent portions that they design could possibly be proprietary, and the
rest could be sold or otherwise distributed by anyone else.
I'm really not sure why I'm bothering to explain this, as I'm pretty sure that this is just a troll . . .
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
apt seems pretty cool, but what about major changes in packages. Quite frequently in the linux community a new software package has a new config file (etc) that is not compatible with older versions. If apt updates packages without user input does this not risk the integrity of the system?
Usually you will be warned that the configuration files do not match, and whether or not you want to cancel the installation. At that point, you can put a hold on that application, and apt won't automatically upgrade it for you if you move to a new version of the distribution.
There are sometimes scripts that will convert data over, or there are configuration scripts for the new version, so you can set it up yourself.
For the most part, Debian does its best to let you know what's going on so you don't accidentally upgrade to a package you can't use because the configuration has changed.
"X was broken in both LinuxPPC 4 and in YellowDog
Server 1.0 after install on my iMac..."
Just to set the record straight. The iMac is a pretty new machine, only 1 year old.
The iMac uses different technology in it display / graphics card, so of course their will be issues.
Heck, The iMac didn't even work until October 1998, getting USB drivers have been a pain in the ass also.
Apple hasn't gaven us much help at all, and the systems are pretty complex.
LinuxPPC R4 was realeased before any support of the iMac in Linux, so of course it going to require a special kernel and patches and stuff to make it work.
Yellow Dog Server 1.0 has some problems with X since it is a new kid on the block (give it some slack), and the default X Server, Xfree86-3.3.1 is also a new kid on the block. (Older Powermac systems used Xpmac, a autoconfiguring server, that plug and play basically). Xfree86-3.3.1 is vastly better, but it needs work on the powerpc to up to snuff. This is one reason for LinuxPPC R5 delay, JCarr has been busy playing with, making it more user friendly, and plug and play. (No playing with crap like configuration files).
I hope you now understand.
Thanks,
Andrew B. Arthur aka AArthur
arthur99@global2000.net
You have to start somewhere.
I, as an advocate of Open Source software, have no real problem with commercial, closed applications. The real benefit of OSS, especially in the beginning, is the availability of a commoditized OS so that the applications we want to run aren't tied to any particular distribution or company.
As we progress, the applications that are best expressed in the open source method will be, leaving only a very few, probably highly specialized apps as closed.
I we want to appear to be a coherent community then we must hold all Linux distros to the same standards that we attack MS under, if not then we are nothing but hypocrites and fantics.
I don't think this is as big of an issue as you make it. It is one of the strengths of Linux that a distribution can be tailored to suit a particular scope or purpose, without diluting the concept. If a bundled app is such that it will only run on one particular version of Linux, that would be an issue, but it seems to me that kind of bundling would seriously backfire.
It is not the presence of commercial software that I have a problem with, it the the presence of commercial software that is so strongly tied to one company's OS that you no longer have a real choice.
In past postings, many here have stated that they would be willing to purchase closed commercial games for Linux. Why then would there be an issue with closed commerical word processors, et.al.? There are open alternatives to virtually all of these, and therefore, we have a choice, and choice is what it's really about.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
Don't get me wrong -- I love Linux. But Red Hat's setup really really sucks. Besides that, and I understand why, but the hardware support sucks, too. I bought a whole computer so I could run X (my previous one was a Dell with an onboard video controller). I finally got all my hardware working in Linux a couple days ago, after using this computer for about 2 months. I had very bad experiences with RH5.2, but 6.0 has been great. I think Red Hat has finally matured. Today, I wen't to my friend's house, and in about two hours, got his whole system working (he'd already installed the OS, but not configured it).
My fairly computer-illiterate mom, who is a lawyer, will be using Linux when she finaly buys a new computer this summer, replacing her Altima 1 286 notebook with character-based monochrome screen and parallel-port, single-speed CD-ROM. This because of Corel's porting of WordPerfect. I have been using Enlightenment for a while now, and I think that since DR 0.15, it is very usable. KDE is probably even more usable, but it's ugly. However, it has better applets bundled (not to say that there's anything preventing you from running Qt apps in Gnome). I used KDE for a while until DR 0.15 came out, because 14 was a bitch to use. Now, though, I think it's pretty good. a couple things still bug me, like a few flaws in the Gnome panel, and the way Midnight Commander sucks, but it's very usable, on the whole. I am not hacker, and my computer is not a server. I am a nerd, though, and Linux is my toy, but that doesn't mean I can't get work done in it. I run WordPerfect, print, use the Gimp, play MP3s, and do everything else in it except run Terragen, Alpha Centauri, and Quake 3 (I know there's a Linux port, but I don't want to download 22MB again).
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
I applaud Corel's efforts. I hope they pour considerable resources into installation, because that is one of the few places that Windows has a huge advantage over all Linux distributions currently. Glad to hear they're planning to join the LSB movement. Corel's developers on the Wine project have contributed a huge amount of code to the effort. Looks like Corel is going to be a great Open Source citizen. I'm looking really forward to seeing their apps on Linux, too!
Will Corel release the source code for its major applications?
While Corel recognizes the value of open source development in many areas, and is actively participating in a number of open source efforts such as Wine and development of KDE, the company has no plans to release the source code for its major applications. Corel's major applications contain many features that rely on code licensed from other vendors, with whom the company has a variety of contractual obligations--one of which is to keep their source code private. Corel could not release its application source code without a tremendous amount of development work to isolate the licensed code, and this work would have a significant impact on release schedules.
Corel seems to be jumping on the Linux/Open Source bandwagon as long as it doens't have to release it's "real" products as Open Source, or so that it doesn't effect their release schedules. On top of that they sya if they did then they would not be able to release all of it, I personally doubt these claims and say that Corel should do all or nothing. We are screaming at MS for not releasing their code and then Corel can say this and everyone just accepts it.
Will CLD be available as a standalone or bundled with Corel's applications?
Corel is still in the process of determining whether CLD will be bundled with Corel applications only, or if it will also be available as a standalone product. Corel's objective is to give as many desktop users access to Linux as possible and if there is a demand for a standalone product, the company will certainly investigate the opportunity.
They are actually considering bundling, isn't that one of the reasons we are pissed at MS, or is it OK for a Linux distro to do it ? IMHO we should be upset that they are considering bundling with only their product and not offering a stand alone. I we want to appear to be a coherent community then we must hold all Linux distros to the same standards that we attack MS under, if not then we are nothing but hypocrites and fantics.
Damn it, doesn't look like there will be a PPC distribution for a while. Isn't one of the big "advantages" of Open Source and Linux that it's easy to port things to different platforms? If so, why does it seem that Linux is so x86-centric? A lot of companies that release commercial software for linux don't even bother making a PPC binary, even though it would probably only take them a day or two...
The PPC linux distributions are also a big pain in the ass. X was broken in both LinuxPPC 4 and in YellowDog Server 1.0 after install on my iMac... Linux may be doing well on x86, but it has a long way to go on other platforms...
-Travis
A bitter PPC user...
If Corel continues to operate with this level of candor and forthrightness in addressing issues they will be well-received by software connoisseurs of among us ... I hope it continues, because such an attitude will only benefit the environment generated by Linux and open source.
If Corel Office only worked with the Corel Linux distro, that would be embrace and extend -- lock people into the distro just because they want the office suite. As long as the office suite runs on all distros, which is their stated plan, there's no danger of that.
Stephen Molitor steve_molitor@yahoo.com