Slashdot Mirror
ESR Interviewed in Tweak3d
Spud wrote to us with an
interview with ESR. Fairly standard material - why Linux is better, and why the Open Source idea works. It's good to see ESR back in the swing of things again, tho'.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
On my ix86 system, asm/param.h sets the jiffy clock to 100 Hz. Furthermore, linux/sched.h defines `jiffies' to be an unsigned long, i.e., a 32 bit number. Then,
(2^32 / 100 Hz) = 4.3 10^7 s = 1.36 years
What bad things happen when the jiffy clock rolls over? bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnk!!
> and then seriously hacked to pieces by an editor
Hackers did it!
You can drone on and on about the Linux OS
never crashing, but that still doesn't
guarantee you won't lose work.
To a user who needs to get work done, he doesn't care if the OS crashes, or the Application crashes, he still lost his work.
Kernel stability really matters on the server, but on the Desktop, application stability matters too.
But most Linux office applications are unstable pieces of shit. No one is going to use Abiword, KOffice, Gnumeric, etc, for serious work. Even WordPerfect is a crash-happy app on Linux.
Fine, crashing apps don't bring down the OS, but they are just as frustrating a bad.
Besides, the whole "blue screen of death" argument is tired FUD. I use NT on the desktop, and my desktop machine has had an uptime of atleast a year. I can't remember *EVER* rebooting it because of crashes.
There is a slippery slope here. Once you start using stability as your litmus test, as soon as MS achieves it, Linux has lost the argument.
Better stick to the GPL argument. Atleast one can't argue against a person's moral choice.
"governments have killed and oppressed far more than individual citizens."
This statement is specious. Please provide figures in support.
If stability is the number one selling point of Linux then there is no longer any reason to use it (at least RedHat 6.0).
Because Gnome as it's GUI has destroyed its overall stability.
Thanks RedHat for your most recent contribution to the Linux world.
"Losing a war doesn't equal massacre. We didn't drag German women and children out and kill them."
Think before posting, it's not the women and children that were armed and its not them that bore the brunt of the casualties. Its the soldiers with the guns that did fight back that were slaughtered. It's not just the losing side, I'd pick Russia in World War II, but like he said pick a war.
I agree - though not so passionately.
Being called a geek just because computers happen to be my interest is quite tiresome. I propose that we start to use the term geek for all people that are good at something or care deeply about something.
Hence doctors are Medical Geeks, salespeople are Economy Geeks and reportes are News Geeks.
Feel free to ad to this list
Regards
D
Third Reich killed 13 million in the death camps from late 30s to mid 40s.
Stalin slaughtered 40 million in purges after end of war.
Mao Tse Tung murdered 80 million in the Great Leap Forward, including nearly everyone with an education past the equivalent of high school.
800,000 died in Rwanda and 200,000 in Burundi in this decade. More than a million in East Timor, in this decade.
I haven't even begun, but if you want a canonical list, I'll post it. The list runs to hundred of incidents of mass murder.
yes, I agree with you.
Altough its always good to bring to a conversation its technical merits at first, later on we should really explain new users what the real potencial of Linux and free software.
Potencial too not only create good software, but more importantly, to get the biggest advantage of computer technology: easy, and free replication.
Eduardo
What about:
You can play all these cool games, free?:)
Im talking about 3d gpl games being made through the net.
Nothing can beat that!
Eduardo
in the equipment industry, we use 'mean time before failure' (MTBF), and it's one of the most important selling points.
By far the number one selling point for equipment is typically 'cost of ownership', or CoO. Low numbers here really convince management. For this, you'd figure in all the services that keep the system running, software costs, speed of fixes, system administration. In this area linux really ought to kick ass. Does anyone have time to creat a decent CoO model?
mb
Many Linux users really are geeks. They call themselves geeks, and want to keep Linux out of the hands of Joe Users - ordinary people. Of course you say that there are no ordinary people. Well, there are those who think of themselves as ordinary - not geeks.
The whole geek identity is a product of our culture of youth. This is especially true in the IT field - in which people who are definitely not
geeks (bosses) hire geeks who think that they can
maintain their job security via a network of geeks, buzz-words and false elitism. However, this is an illusion. That doesn't help for very long. If the geek does not become a non-geek and move into management quickly, his career is finished after age 35 or so - with *very* few
exceptions - some programmers and engineers with outstanding reps and in academic circles. These other geeks have sold their souls but still try to hold onto something. The thing is you can't have it both ways. So, they become mediocre managers and make do if they can in boring jobs, but the people who were really born to be managers and not technical, creative people are more successful at it.
At least Raymond is more mature than the average
Slashdotter and has taken some business initiatives outside the normal corporate circles in which most geeks work. Well, he markets open source to corporations but still isn't a part of that culture in the same way that geeks are, while denying it. Therefore he is more free to be himself - a gun toting right wing nut. I can repsect that a lot more than geeks who all try to be the same with there fads and buzz words and cliquishness. Give me a Joe User any day.
Geeks, get a life. Stop trying to spoil Linux for normal people.
I don't believe that Linux is popular because users like GPL. That's crazy. There is intense commercialization of Linux and there have been a lot of advertisements and hype and people are led astray to believe that Linux is the only free and powerful os in existence. That's why it's popular.
The real reason to use Linux is the GPL.
No doubt - this, unfortunately, seems to get lost in the shuffle. Freedom seems a very difficult concept for folks to discuss. However, the profitability achived by taking away that freedom is not lost on software vendors.
Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others.*
This, IMHO, is why RMS insists on the name "GNU/Linux" - to draw attention to the "GNU" issues - the issues of freedom, cooperation and community.
* from "The GNU Manifesto"
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
If everyone had your attitude, Linux never would have made it to 1.0 - everyone would have sat around crying their eyes out about how 0.10 sucked and MS would have 100% of the market.
Open Source only works when everyone helps test stuff. And luckiliy it IS working for GNOME - 1.0.10 is far more stable than previous versions (although I still use KDE as my primary desktop).
In my post I was trying to say that GPL is not the driving force behind the Linux's popularity today. And here is the confusion. I was talking about the force that drives a consumer to try Linux today, not the force that causes people to be evagelistic about GPL/Linux. I agree with you that Linux at first propelled itself with the GPL agenda. But what propels it now? That is the most important.
Subject says it all.
You say that GPL is "Feel free to use my code, as long as you let others use yours. If you don't want to share, then don't use my code." This is not accurate. Let me make it accurate. "Feel free to use my code, as long as you become part of our GPL family. If you don't want to become a part of our GPL family, then don't use my code. I won't share it even if you share your code with others."
You obviously are just an idiot who doesn't understand. Who ever said anything about Gnome causing Kernel panics or RedHat making Gnome unstable. So let me walk you through this again.
1. Gnome is unstable.
2. RH choose Gnome as their default window manager.
3. Doing so made 6.0 extremely unstable (unless you consider uptime of less than a week stable)
4. As ER stated one of the main selling points of Linux is its stability.
5. By introducing this element of instability into the foremost Linux distribution, RedHat has lost the confidence of a lot of long time users. Also when new users try Redhat, their common reaction will be, "Oh, Linux is an unstable piece of Sh*t.I think I'll stick with Windows." They will NOT say and MS will NOT say' "Oh, you know Linux is really stable but RedHat is using Gnome 1.0 which is really unstable so I will use another Window manager or come back later and try RedHat 6.2."
You know it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are an idiot rather than opening your mouth and proving it.
For an intelligent reply to the original post please see the one posted after yours by MHA.
RedHat is no longer releasing a Linux 1.0 release. They are selling a near $100 release and are doing an IPO. Gnome 1.0 does not belong in RH 6.0. It is not a true 1.0 release and it is not stable as you stated. Let M$ go with the beta releases, keep them off my computer. If I want to use beta software, make it my choice and let me know it is beta. Don't make it the default Window manager in a new release.
Sure you can do things cheaper/better/faster with Linux but you better have the time to learn how to do it.
Why are the shoddy practices of a company like Micro$oft immediately okay when done by a Linux company? Ex. Beta releases, buggy releases, inattention to bug reports, etc.? The Linux community is always pushing these things as the reason to abandon Microsoft, but when they are duplicated by Redhat, it suddenly becomes okay? Why?
Bull. Little handheld devices have been around for years and continue to be nothing but little trinkets that people get on Father's day, play with for a couple of weeks and never use to get any "real" work done. People want all the functionality and power in a handheld that they can get on a PC. Its not there yet, and I don't think it will get there with crippled appliance OSes.
I tried it out last night. It sucks. Arrow keys don't work right with it, and there is no dynamic prompt (PS1=[\w]\$). And what's up with ls. Its slower than spooge.
I don't like GPL because 1) it tries to be completely independent and 2) it tries to conquer the world. Licenses should be diverse because people are diverse. I like the Open Source Foundation because it convinces people to make their software open source and convinces people that open source software is high quality. I hope that the Open Source Foundation succeeds greatly and that we won't need GPL in the future.
Only if you believe yourself to be an "enlighted person," living in the "enlightened society" of Bill and Hill, do you believe that its no longer necessary. 55 million people (and some estimates are up to 110 million) have been killed THIS CENTURY by their OWN GOVERNMENTS. And what was the first step those governments took -- they took away their populace's weaponry. I don't know about you, but having an armed citizenry as a little bit of insurance makes me sleep a little bit better at night.
You can bet that if the US Government decided to go against the US people, 250 million guns in US households might make them think twice. Those are 500 to 1 odds.
I havent been hunting for them(go to linuxgames.com), but I know of 2 flight simulators with features such as using real (taken from satelite images) scenerys/locations.
Well see how can a game be done through the net.
But im optimist:)
Than Windows and ESR's pathetic vision of "everything that I don't approve of sucks".
Every UNIX variant is stronger than ever. Commercial software on Linux is a phenomenon which is a hundred times bigger than open source. If you use ANY UNIX and run the commercial packages which are available there and for Linux, you'll find an abundance of choices. If you restrict yourself to open source apps, you'll be scratching hard to find software that will do the job for you.
An open source operating system is one thing. Open source apps are another. The first one is a reality. The second one is still mostly a dream. Use what works.
In fact the during the "Wild West," the murder rate was much lower than it is today. History books are much better at facts than going by what is seen in movies. All around the country, the statistics say the same thing -- more guns, less crime (Read: More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) by John R., Jr. Lott if you're interested.) If everyone was armed, the crime rate would be considerably lower, and you would absolutely not have these crazed lunatics entering buildings and shooting everyone. By the time the crazy SOB got one shot off, somebody would take him out.
of a shallow, tired theme. "I'm great, I'm new, I've got what everyone's looking for. Don't be stupid, be like me".
You can only coast so far when you're out of gas. This guy is at a dead stop as far as new ideas go.
The KLA is primarily financed through the heroin trade in Europe. Not that I don't agree with you on the armed citizenry thing.
Egotism - a : excessive use of the first person singular personal pronoun b : the practice of talking about oneself too much 2 : an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Egoism - a : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action b : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions 2 : excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance
But there is strength in numbers. The German military was only at about 1 million at the time, and IIRC, the number of German Jews was much higher than that.
Anyone involved with guns will tell you that a skilled shooter with a 357 could take out person with an automatic machine gun most of the time. When shooting an automatic weapon, people have the tendency to just move it back and forth without aiming. Contrary to what we see in the movies, this is not very effective.
Owning a hand gun isn't going to mean shit when your government wants to kill you.
Tweak3D: For our readers who don't know, who are you and why are you associated with the Linux/Open-source movement?
ESR: Although no one asked me to, I've taken on the well-paying, perk-filled job of whoring linux to bolster my own ego and ridcule those who don't agree with me. Users should know that I actually hava NADA to do with the development of linux itself. Oh yeah, I wrote "The cathedral and the Bazaar" which is relies exclusively on ideas others have been promoting for many years and is obvious logic to anyone who has been around the scene for more than a year, but what the hell, I'll take credit for it all.
I also like to slip in little teasers regarding my dubious and perhaps psychotic love of firearms along the way - it makes me look like a maverick and helps burnish the renegade image of the open source community, which is even a more hip community than the Linux community, which has not yet been purged of commercial influences and commercial software.
Do you honestly think the US government is going to suddenly turn and start throwing people in prison randomly and that people all around the country will all rise up together to throw off the chains of oppression?
Look at the civil war, almost 1/2 of the country failed to overthrow the other half using violent means. Where as in India, Gandhi led a movement to overthrow the Britsh through peaceful means.
True oppression occurs slowly, over a long period of time so that most don't even see it happening. A gun will not protect you from this. Only education will.
This is such a bad argument.
First this is assuming a situation that has never occurred. A fully armed population does not assure no gun crimes. Most of the murders that occur do not happen in mass scenes of violence in public places. They occur in private places due to temporary passion or rage. If everyone who was angry had immediate access to guns there would be more murders not less.
Also most deaths due to guns in the home are due to mistaking a family member for a burgler. You are almost 10 times more likely to kill a family member than a thief in your own home.
And do you advocate all students and teachers should be armed just in case someone tries to shoot up a school? Do you really think its a good idea to arm every teenager?
Stop living in an NRA illusion.
Has anyone ever considered what kind of a sick society we are living in when 2 kids go into a school and blow away more than 10 kids, and people turn around and say we need more guns not less?
I believe years. I admin a P60 for the local K12 school district here. Our load averages were between 5-12 for 8 hours a day M-F. The box easily stays up the entire semester. Since IT isn't a priority for the district, the server location usually changes every semester. My uptime is 167 days because the box changed buildings over Christmas break. The uptime was about 200 days when it was last moved. So, I firmly can say with clear conscience that linux is capable of years of uptime.
P.S. The University of Washington POP server is a piece of shit. After 2 years of it sucking, I recently changed to cucipop. The load avg has dropped to 0.5-1. This box has 4000 POP accounts.
Hmm, tell that to the people who have encountered Bliss or admw0rm....
You are a fucking retard!
You honestly think that the populace should have access to nuclear weapons?
Jeezus
The "GPL family" is the group of projects that are GPL'ed. The GPL projects cannot share code with differently licensed projects. You see, open source projects such as the BSDs are not so stiff necked about letting commercial companies use their code but the GPL projects are. And this difference prohibits the sharing of code between GPL projects and other open source projects. That is really bad.
A GPL project is good only if it is adopted by everyone in the open source community; an example is gcc/egcs. There are no other similar projects so that no effort is wasted. But when there are two open source projects that have similar interests but are licensed under GPL and a BSD type license, then there is duplication of effort because they cannot effectively share code.
You seem to be offended at the notion the German
Jews might not have been so easily slaughtered if
they'd been able to effectively resist. Why?
Do you actually believe that isn't true, that
their deaths were somehow inevitable and nobody
could have done anything to stop it?
If you like using LaTeX, its about time you came out the closet mate. ;)
Agreed and I am no fan at all of M$.
All of the apologists out there for RedHat are doing Linux users no favors. There are hurting Linux and making Linux look foolish and not ready for primetime.
people are buying linux because of all the fluff websites, hyped magazine ads, and umpteen articles on ZD websites.
95% of users do not know what the acronym GPL stands for.
Haha - soon Bob Young and Ransom love are going to tell him to shut his trap after he lets loose with the wrong rant at the wrong time. He's got a big mouth, and he's a smart-ass. Sooer or later RedHat is going to realize they need professional public relations.
Its about blaming the victim - that somehow it is the fault of the jews for not carrying pistols to school.
If you take the time to read the original article ER's argument for new users to use Linux is the stability factor. Read - new users.
Newbies who paid $ to RedHat to get 6.0 expect a stable working version of Linux. They do not want to here that they should switch Gui's, don't use one, or use Linux as a server.
They also don't want a Linux with broken libraries, a happy crashy GUI, a misconfigured Samba, etc. And neither do experienced users.
For experienced Linux users the choice is simple - use Suse, Slack, or Debian. As I plan to do.
As you yourself stated Gnome is still beta software prone to crashes. New users do not want to hear technical babble about kernel panics and the difference between wm uptime and system uptime. And wm manager uptime is not trivial anyways if you are actually doing work when the window manager crashes.
ER's argument as to why people should use argument is it's stability. RedHat 6.0 is not a stable product by any means. Instead of being an apologist for RedHat, take the time to realize that 6.0 is a technically flawed product and should not have been released in its current state. It would have obviously been a much better release if it had used KDE instead of Gnome. As it stands now though 6.0 is an embarrassment as the most publicly recognized distribution. No, RH is not Linux obviously, but this fact will pop into the minds of newbies trying out Linux for the first time - which is what ER was speaking about in the article.
The interview was about as deep as a wading pool for two-year-olds. If ESR's going to ram his nutty views about the role of guns in his life down our throats, then we have every right in the world to vomit all over him if that's what he makes us feel like doing in reaction to what he says.
How come we don't see equal number of gun murders in Canada and Britain then?
Maybe the people in Jamaica...well, I won't go there.
The point of GUI's is obviously to make the going easier for newbies. An experienced user can get by using the command line, VI, tex, etc. Forget Gnome,KDE, LinuxConf, etc.
However if the default init level is 5 then it is obvious RedHat intended for everyone to use the default GUI - Gnome.
This takes away from the overall distribution for all - newbies and experienced users. And new users are not going to think about Linux and the GUI as two seperate entities. And neither is someone in IT who is deciding what to install on a server. A bad distribution with bad defauts is still that - a bad distribution.
Don't make excuses or semantic arguements just do it right!
GNU Linux + GNU Gnome = no relationship at all.
Yeah right. Oh you know you can use Windows without the Window manager too and it's much more stable . It's called DOS.
Linux hypocrisy strikes again.
Just because Switzerland had a gun in every home 15 years ago and the crime rate was no proves no connection between the two. First you are not even sure of your facts. 2nd what is the situation like now? Third you have totally ignored the culture of this country and assume that the only reason there was little crime is because there are guns. You are not looking at the social situation, why people have guns, the historic gun tradition in this country, etc. You merely assume guns are the cause of social stability. I am not Swiss but if you ask them about the social situation in their country, I am sure they will tell you it is far different from that in the States.
On the opposite hand take northern Pakistan, where there is almost universal gun ownership. Murders and violence are an everyday occurance.
And if the US gov. decided to off the US people do you think it would be done with guns? More likely with a bacteria don't you think? While you have been stockpiling weapons for the past 50 years, the gov. has been stocking microbes? If it ever came down to it how will your guns protect you from a virus?
Agreed: unneccessary flame. 2 minutes in the penalty box.
The fear isn't that someone might make money
on the code (if I wanted a cut, I'd simply use a license that got me one), it's that someone might make a
closed-source version. I do that sort of thing grudgingly for
now to earn a living, but I won't subsidize such
cretins for free.
Is there any way to talk about prevention that previous victims *won't* interpret as blaming them?
Does the accomodation of previous victims outweigh the safety of victims yet to be?
This, of course, is why a standing army belonging to the US federal government was prohibited - it'd be too difficult for ordinary militia to stand up to, and too tempting an invitation to tyranny....
I've never heard of anyone actively trying to prevent J. Random User from running Linux. I don't know how one would go about doing that (other than companies with IS guys who just generally like telling people which tools they may use to do their jobs). At worst, we aren't volunteering to help them, since there's no reason we're obliged to. I don't care what other people run, I just don't listen to whining about needing to know what you're doing. If you want an appliance that only does certain things out of the box, with no user-servicable parts, you'd be happer with a Mac anyway.
Well, your beliefs aren't likely to convince someone unless they are backed up by valid facts. Do you honestly expect to convince me or anyone else when you openly admit your arguments aren't supported by facts?
I really do not feel a need to put up a sign in my yard saying that I do not have a gun. Although I would feel perfectly safe doing so since most if not all of the people in my community do not own gun and its generally known by all, I am not paranoid as to think that criminals are lining up at my front door to rob me and that the only thing keeping them away is my shotgun. My family has lived in America for over 100 years and no one at all has had their house robbed ever. The fact that I can buy a gun doesn't make me feel that my family is safe. The fact that idiots and outlaws can get one makes me feel just the opposite.
Raymond's statement refers to the policy of the Third Reich to disarm the civilian population. Whether an armed population would have prevented the entire holocaust is unknowable, but it seems reasonable that an armed population would have at least made it more difficult.
Further aside, though slightly relevant, is the role that arms played in the recent Kosovo conflagaration. I don't watch television ("shoot your tv") but from what I here at the office, it is rare for the popular press to mention that the arming of the KLA over the last ~2 years was the straw the broke the camels back. It is really an interesting story (truth stranger than fiction and all that), so here it goes. You can draw your own conclusions.
It seems that the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) was sort of the militant wing of the groups that wanted independence for Kosovo. Similar to the IRA/Shen Fein(sp?) in North Ireland. But, for the most part, the KLA was not armed enough to do much, so the political wing which was working on a slow, peacable and exorable move towards independence tended to dominate the situation.
This all stopped when a pyramid scheme toppled Albania (yes, really, go look up Albania and pyramid on the cnn webserver for some of the details). The Kosovo area is land-locked with little access to foreign trade (i.e. imported weapons), Albania borders the sea. When Albania collapsed, for a while arms became both the only real currency and really cheap. The KLA suddenly had access to a lot of guns from Albania, and they made the most of it.
Pretty soon, the KLA was raising enough hell in Kosovo that the situation escalated to the point of lots of dirty fighting on both sides. With people getting killed, and a lot of them being Kosovar civilians, the US (aka Albright) felt compelled to do something and the rest is history.
But, if it were not for those guns coming in through Albania, the situation would probably have never reached the boiling point and there would have been no bombing campaign. Depending on your view of the whole mess, this is either a strong argument for "the right to bear arms" to fight tyranny, or a strong argument against because the KLA didn't have enough strength to succeed, just enough to get Milosevic riled up enough to start really being vicious.
Americans equate freedom with guns far too much.
Guns can't keep you free, only intelligence can.
The government has done and will do a thousand things to impede on your personal liberty, but you will not see them without intelligence. You will go on thinking that you live in the freest country in the world because you can own a gun. It's simply not true. The dual pressures of social and political conformity in the US are greater than in many places in the world. Yes, you are free - free to be like everyone else.
If the US government decided to deprive you of guns or any other liberty do you think that a shotgun would help? Answer me this - when has any uprising in US history against the government for any reason succeeded because of armed strength? Never once since the Whiskey Rebellion.
Wake up. Guns can't keep you free. Only intelligence can. Guns can only give you a false illusion of freedom.
It's still a tough sell though. "You can play pod racer and all your favorite games and reboot occasionally" vs. "You never have to reboot but you can only play Quake and Civ:CTP" isn't very favorable towards Linux.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
An armed German populace would've made very little difference, as the majority of Germans supported the state anyway.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I can understand why Jefferson and many others were in favor of a populace whose weaponry could overcome the military if needed, but that doesn't seem to be practical any longer. In those days, that could be achieved by giving everybody rifles, and giving a few people cannons. If somebody misused their weapons, they could kill a few people.
To overcome to the U.S. government, the firepower you'd need would be extremely dangerous. What happens when one of your nuclear-armed citizens goes crazy and decides to blow up Washington?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
When you show me a free GPL game that can compete with Starcraft or Master of Orion 2, then we'll talk.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I never said that it was no longer necessary. I just said that it was no longer practical.
I personally would like it to be possible for the citizenry to overcome the military if necessary. However, I also don't want to be killed by rogue members of that citizenry who decide to bomb my house with their F-16s.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
But what happens when your neighbor (who is somewhat mentally unstable) decides to detonate his nuclear weapons for the hell of it, taking you along with him? All your defense against a tyrannical state is sort of pointless, since you're dead.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Of course, that didn't stop Congress from authorizing a standing army anyway...*grumble*
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by d106ene5:
Eric has done tremendous things for free and open software. What have you done?
I've refrained from making moronic statements about the holocaust.
Eric's statement wasn't a "political view" - it was the naive, absurd notion that somehow pistol weilding jews could have confronted the German Army.
Posted by d106ene5:
Before you go believing all the tripe Time magazine manufactures for your consumption, consider that before this little conflaguration started, The KLA were considered serious nasties by the US Govt. Its a classic case of terrrorists being recast as freedom fighters once the US decides which side it is on.
Actually, I think the more accurate argument would be that he would never had attempted his crime, for fear of being shot.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
While the BSD crowd certainly has their beliefs about code sharing, consider that many programmers, if they choose to contribute to an Open Source project, want to ensure that their code remains open, and is never used (at least not legally) in proprietary software. In other words, "Feel free to use my code, as long as you let others use yours. If you don't want to share, then don't use my code." The GPL ensures this. BSD-ish licenses, whatever their other strengths, do not. Hence the popularity of GPLd projects like Linux.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
What companies have made significant enhancements to GPL code? Any of them sell proprietary code?
What I hate about the GPL is that it plays on an emotion as bad as greed; the fear that someone *else* might make money off of one's code. What makes this particularly inane is that people are making money with the aid of one's code (Red Hat, VA Linux, any commercial website using Apache) anyway, it's just other programmers you are keeping from earning a living.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
whats a better license than the GPL that *ensures* that the code will always remain free? If you let people start changing the license, there is the possibility that the code will eventually end up legally in a proprietary program.
Code licensed under BSD style licenses make up an important part of every GNU/Linux distribution. However, only the GPL was designed to guarantee freedom for the users. The BSD license allows companies to horde the source code and release proprietary software using that code.
I do not think that the BSD license can compete when the big companies start getting involved in free software. The GPL makes sure everyone stays on an even playing field. Look, Solaris has been based upon BSD, as had BSDi. To my knowledge these companies have not made significant contributions to the BSD community. They have based their operating systems around proprietary improvments to the BSD codebase. Is that what you want to happen to Linux?
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD aren't growing as quickly as Linux, at least to my knowledge. I think a very large part of the reason Linux is popular today is because developers *like* the GPL, and users *like* the GPL.
Kirk
ESR's attitude worries me somewhat. He seems to say that stability is the only thing linux has going for it. What happens if Windows starts to become more stable? Then there is no reason to use Linux.
The real reason to use Linux is the GPL. It gives users freedoms that just aren't obtainable in the Windows world. I really wish that ESR would talk about these important freedoms and get people excited instead of just saying "it doesn't crash".
I suppose this attitude is one of the differences between Open Source and Free software.
Kirk
They were K-12 mail servers at a clients. They had a couple that had been running for over a year. They did just fine until a logfile filled a disk . . .
>whats a better license than the GPL that >*ensures* that the code will always remain free?
Raptor: "You can use this code for anything you damned well feel like, so long as the source code for any modifications that you make are made available at no additional cost when you distribute and such source is covered by this license."
Keeps the source free, keeps it under the same license, and is willing to play with any other from any license without attempting to assimulate it.
Watch out your window for four horseman, check that the moon hasn't turned to blood, and keep an eye out for other similar Signs. . .
:)
You made a well reasoned Pro gun control statement so I feel I need
.38 Matic. A few months latter someone
to explain a few things which aren't apparent to many people.
Jamaica has some of the strictest Gun control Laws on the planet.
Here it is a felony to have an unlicensed firearm. If you are found
with one you can get as much as 10 years in Prison for it. The
qualifications for getting a lisense are strict. The process is long and
there is provision for subjective rejection.
Note : Using it is a separate crime.
Jamaica has a population of 2.7 Million and a 6,000 member police
force. Our army ( only slightly smaller than the police force ) needs
to provide additional manpower nonetheless.
We had 800+ Murders last year. and 760 The year before. Around 1/2
with Guns. ( A typical ratio )
How could this happen ?
Last year someone offered me a
else asked me to keep a Tech 9 for him. In both cases I refused for
the simple reason that I don't want to be a criminal.
A simple rule of thumb is that when guns are illegal only criminals
will have them. It is impossible to close all the points at which a
10 lb mechanical device that can be dismantled into an unrecognizable
pile of scrap can enter. Never mind that a bright High School kid can
build one and any crack gang can manufacture bullets.
Another point to note is that the afluent comunities here have very
few burgleries ( almost none ). If you ask a burgler ( I did ) he
will tell you that "Dem man de a shata. Some a dem have biga gun dan
mi". Also "Dog a nuh not'n fi deal wid and alarm only ketch you when
yu nuh look out fi it".
Transelations. shata == person with gun.
The rest is just of kilter spelling to reflect the
way things are pronounced.
--
"THINK" -: former IBM motto.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
It's a strange kind of math but 10 desperate people fighting for survival can hold off a battalion that just hates them or was ordered to find and kill them ( assuming they are equally armed ). Denying the Jews the right to bear arms was a part of the oppression. It just wasn't noticed until too late.
For the record the Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust. The Nazis were also careful to slaughter every Black person, Gipsy or person with a disability they could find. Even gays were targeted.
Unfortunately Jewish Germans outnumbered all these other groups combined.
--
"THINK" -: former IBM motto.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Maybe the people in Jamaica...well, I won't go there.
You won't so I will.
People in Jamaica can get away with murder. The number I called typical is the ratio of gun murders to other kinds of murder.
In places with armed citizens you think before you shoot. In Jamaica you get 4X the crime of New York City. ( Adjusted for population )
-- "THINK" -: former IBM motto.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
On a side note, he has released fetchmail 5.0.4, my personal favorite pop3 mail utility.
Why is it, that Linux users are always referred to as geeks ? I'm sick and tired of being referred to as a geek, by people who I consider more excentric than myself.
It seems that someone who writes code, or likes LaTeX, or has the ability to start a piece of software that doesn't have an icon on the desktop for it, are simply ``geeks''.
Anyone who's interested in anything, and I guess that sort of covers most people, knows something about that thing, that other's maybe don't. If a geek is someone who simply knows something about something which the observer doesn't, then most people are by definition ``geeks''. I wish the non-{Linux,UN*X} users would accept that fact, and stop referring to us as geeks.
It's damaging for the image of Linux, that people refer to it's user base as geeks, in a way that implies that most other people aren't geeks. They are, and so what. Get over that geek hump. Accept that Linux users knows something about something that non-Linux users don't, but don't imply that Linux is reserved for Linux-geeks only.
It's sick the way that people tend to put other people in categories, like geeks vs. non-geeks. Show me a non-geek and I'll show you someone who's lying about their interests.
My worthless view is most (business) users don't
know and, don't care how the box works. Just get
my work done for me! I'm an electronics/laser
technician. I'll 'do' my own brake jobs. They
can have my GNU/LinuX when, they can pry it from
my cold dead hands! Hell, I like hockey and football! But call me a geek, who cares, call me
anything but late for supper!
And Re: the article, I think gaming will help. If you get young people into 'it' they won't even know they're geeks! Way cool!
If you grab the gnuwin32 distribution off Cygnus's site, you can have BASH for Windows NT (I haven't gotten it to work right under 95).
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
> "Glad to see ESR back?"
..."
I am. His slightly egotistic writing grates with
even me - but I'm an egotist too so I forgive
him.
Seriously, he's an accomplished coder, writer and
ambassador to the movement. His slant on the basic
precepts of Free Software: "Open Source", have
caused some internal angst. But shit happens,
frankly.
>I'm still reeling from his comments on linux.com about gun control -
>
> Personal firearms are the teeth of liberty. A disarmed population is one waiting to be enslaved or massacred at the convenience of
> tyrants -- as Jefferson knew, Germany's Jews found out
It surprised me, but not much. Spend some time rummagine through
ESR's pages on Guns and Gun control and you'll see that he
believes in this stuff very strongly.
I had an email debate with him on the topic, not long after
Australia's horrific Port Arthur Massacre. For the unknowing
amongst you, a psychopath - a clinical psychopath - legally
got hold of a military assault weapon and slaughtered dozens
of holiday-makers.
Australian gun laws were tightened dramatically after that.
One local pundit observed that perhaps the massacre wouldn't
have happened, if everyone had been armed - Martin Bryant
would have been shot dead.
Would he though? Would these people *hit* Bryant - armed with
an automatic weapon - with pistols? Would they be alive?
Would they hit each other? Would they have known who the
gunman was? And would they be there - would they have died
earlier in an impulse murder or impulse suicide?
The defense of freedom is essential, however. But I do not
agree with Raymond that I will need guns to defend mine.
>Oh those silly Jews! If they had only paid up their NRA memberships
>they would have never got into that mess!
"And God so loved the world
Be well;
JC.
-- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the fictional entity who may or may not have expressed them
As ESR says, if you're that anti-firearm I challenge you to put a sign in your yard/on your apartment door that proclaims "This dwelling is a gun-free zone"
A fully armed populace may not eliminate all gun crime, but I would venture to hypothesize that a criminal is much less likely to, say, rob a bank, if he thinks there's a better than even chance that most of the people in the bank are capable of taking him out.
As far as the "illusion" goes, I don't know of a single NRA member that believes the illusion that you will eliminate gun crime by compromising the rights of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves.
Gun Control means using both hands
As always, these are my opinions.
--Kit
Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
No, I'm not 100% sure of the facts, which I indicated. I am 100% sure of my beliefs, which, apparently you aren't. At least you aren't sure enough to openly admit what your beliefs are.
Put that sign in your yard, then we'll talk.
These opionions are mine.
--Kit
Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
There is a slippery slope here. Once you start using stability as your litmus test, as soon as MS achieves it, Linux has lost the argument.
Excellent point!
However, I have to disagree with your implication that a better argument is that of software morality. People should chose a computer and operating system because it lets them do what they need/want to do.
The best way to convert non-techie users to Linux is to show them that they can do the things they need to do cheaper/better/faster with Linux (or *BSD, or BeOS) than with their current choice.
And, if they can't do what they want better on an alternative OS, then you are doing that person a disservice by "converting" them.
Sorry, venting.
Somehow I doubt that GNOME is causing kernel panics. Perhaps GNOME is unstable but who in the hell defined GNOME==Linux? And how the hell did RedHat make GNOME unstable? Perhaps I don't understand or perhaps you are just full of shit.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
I should have understood that this AC doesn't understand the possessive tense. Linux doesn't inherit instability because GNOME is unstable. You are indicating that Linux is unstable. The only thing that could mark Linux being unstable is a kernel panic. Just because GNOME runs on a Redhat Linux system doesn't mean that the Redhat system or that the Linux kernel is unstable.
Its always interesting to listen to Linux users who when they don't completely understand something in an argument will say "Well, the common user will think..." instead of "The technical reason is...".
Its also interesting how AC's (convientiently) forget the sarcasm in any post. AC you are a fscking idiot if you think that an OS inherits the instability of a user program, albeit a window manager, desktop environment.
Some points:
1. Yes, exactly... not an argument
2. RH doesn't inherit the instability of GNOME. You don't have to run a window manager, and if you do, so what.
3. What uptime are you talking about? System uptime or window manager uptime? Compared to system uptime, wm uptime is trivial. You don't need a GUI up to run httpd, samba, ect. Perhaps its convienient, but its not as if you need to reboot your system because the wm pukes. As a server, it matters little. On a workstation it can be a pain in the ass, but is NOT a Linux or Redhat stability problem.
4. Linux is stable, GNOME is not.
5. New user, common users.. its just a cop-out to any real intelligent statement that you might make. If Redhat pisses you of by including GNOME, pick up a different distribution or download KDE, or something else. In my opinion GNOME is still beta quality software (even by non-opensource people) and should never have reached 1.0 before stability was fixed.
AC, do me a favor and look up the word inheritance in a dictionary. Yes, and then tell me how you decided that Linux inherits all of GNOME's bugs. It'll be amusing to see your answer. Yes, amusing.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Intercal? You've GOT to be kidding.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
keep in mind, the pen is only mightier than the sword at distances greater than one meter.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
->>> Note I currently use SuSE 6.0
The RedHat distribution is broken there is no doubt about that. Try compiling PGP 5.0 with that it dies. Gnome is incomplete and I would not ever concider using it a my desktop until some one proves to me it is as complete as KDE. RedHat does the linux community a disservice. Any RedHat user should honestly consider moving to SuSE, or Slack. When the Gnome people create a complete desktop with simple configuration, and libraries that do not break my current system, I might consider going over.
I'm a geek.
In my parlance, a geek is someone who is deeply interested in a particular subject and, because of that interest, knows a lot about it. Conversely, a nerd is someone who geeks on one subject to the exclusion of all else (such as social skills, personal hygeine, etc.)
I'm really several geeks in one. I'm a computer geek , to be sure; I'm also an art geek who enjoys an afternoon at a gallery or museum every bit as much as a late night spent hacking code. I'm a movie geek, which seems a given as I work in the film industry. I'm a process geek, which is to say that I really enjoy looking closely at the way in which a thing is done and figuring out how to do it better/faster/easier. I'm a people geek, a hiking geek, a perl geek, and a knowledge geek... and I could go on for days.
Maybe, rather than fighting the geek image, we need to redefine what the public thinks of when they hear "geek."
And FWIW, I've got the "biting the heads off chickens" definition of geek on my personal business card...right above the more useful definition; it's funny as hell and not the least bit insulting to me. And I don't think Linux should be kept out of the hands of Joe User...I'm working to put it there. =]
--j, your friendly neighborhood geek
>For gun control backers who don't believe or understand this argument, please prove your independence from the guns of hated conservatives and libertarians; put an "unarmed and proud of it" sign in your yard and on your car.
OK, Done. (Apart from the fact that I don't hate the conservatives and libertarians, and don't own a car). What's your point?
This post more than anything else I have read has swung me in favour of gun control - if having a culture of guns means living in such a climate of fear that you feel that you need one for defence, then we don't need them here any more than they already are.
I'm also proud to live in a country where:
- handguns are illegal (I never saw one till I visited the USA),
- you need a license to own or use a gun (I don't have a gun license),
- most gun ownership is for the purpose of hunting,
- policemen don't carry guns,
- the airports consider it unecassary to X-ray luggage before getting on a plane.
There are lots of things about this country (New Zealand) that I am not proud of, but I don't feel the need to go even more off-topic.
Roy Ward.
--
Guns don't kill people - bullets do.
I don't like to be an ogre, but for the moment, those games 100% pure vapour.
When we start to see some code for them, and some consistence progress, i think i'll start to notice them. But these sound suspiciously like mere attention getters and not real games. =(
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
hahhahahaahaaahahhaahahh!
=)
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Chill out. Now I am not a big fan of ESR myself, but I certainly agree
with him on the guns issue. I personally believe all weapons including
nuclear arsenal should be allowed. The principle on which America was
founded is that the combined military power of the people should be
overwhelming compared with the entire power of the state, including
army police and other institutions. Read federalist papers, man.
As for NADA, it's a bit harsh. I would say that it's a pity speeches
and interviews for ESR took place of coding. But he did code at one time
and his stuff (fetchmail) did and does run on Linux, so once again
NADA is a bit harsh.
Which brings us back to nuclear arsenal. Having the ability to blow
up every army, FBI, CIA and what have you buildings in the X mile
radius will make local if not federal authorities think twice about
infringing on your freedom. Now I am not a militia nut, nor do I
subscribe to their intolerant views, but when it comes to arming
yourself to achieve personal freedom, I sure agree with them.
I do personally think that.
However (and this is also an answer to
a post below), nuclear weapons cost a lot
of money to buy and maintain, so individuals
will rarely be able to own them. However,
small communities could band together and
stockpile such ammo. The way to prevent
mentally unstable people from taking your
life is to have a community lock, where
only a majority could unlock the weapon and use.
Say each person gets a key and only if more
that 51% of keys are inserted will the weapon
detonate. And of course guns will ensure
freedom within each such nuclear club.
because of ESR, I for one will be grateful, and consider him worth having around. I, as a techie, would much rather not have windows on my desk at work, like I do now.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
The notion of an open source OS (so it's easy to write apps for and tweak to your heart's content) and proprietary apps (so developers have food on the table and can make money with a good idea) works just great with me. There are a lot of proprietary apps that I really like and will continue to use. Obviously, given the choice between having something open sourced or closed, all other things being constant, I would pick the open one. But as we all know, it doesn't work that way, and I'm fine with that.
My point about ESR is that, while he may get under people's skin and say some off the wall things that many others don't agree with, he is still a very useful person to have around. He did, after all, play a big part in the oss mozilla in his present role, and before that (like many have already pointed out) wrote some very useful code.
I don't like to let outside issues (like, oh, say, gun control :-) get mixed in with arguements like this one, because they are irrelevant. Do outsiders really think we are all just like him; that he represents us all? Not unless they're stupid (hmmmm, maybe I better not go there).
I can see one useful goal for linux/oss advocacy. No, it isn't to put it on every countertop of every home. It is to get companies to accept oss as a viable alternative to css (can I make a new acronym?) in certain situations, like device drivers, if the thing you want to sell is the hardware. Or Linux/BSD on a server, if what you really want is to just shut the thing up in a closet and never have to worry about it again.
Bottom line: ESR has demonstrated an ability to push us closer to those goals. Who cares what kind of PR we get if those goals are met? That's what we really want, isn't it?
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Name one heavily armed group thats been massacred in large numbers
France, WWII. Vietnam. In fact, the loosing side of any war.
Just because they can fight back doesn't mean they're not being oppressed. Removing the means to oppress them, on the other hand might help. A fact all too many people seem all to happy to ignore.
A few guns and molotov cocktails enabled one Jewish ghetto to drive off the entire might of the German army around Warsaw for months. They had to raise the entire neighbourhood just to get at them. Read about it here and realize that you're desperately wrong. Makes me damn glad that side of my family got out of Germany before it was too late - and came back later as members of the US army to crush the Nazis.
Oh, and do me a favor. If guns don't prevent tyranny, name one heavily-armed group that's been massacred in large numbers.
As for France - guess what! They had gun control at the time, including registration of every gun owner and his/her weapons. So when the Nazis went in, they grabbed the lists, found the owners and told them to give up their weapons or die. The French resistance still managed to play a role.
As for the Vietnamese - are you honestly telling me the average Vietnamese had weapons that he personally owned? No, Ho Chi Minh armed them - and like it or not, they drove off the US Army. I wouldn't call that a massacre.
Just because they can fight back doesn't mean they're not being oppressed. Removing the means to oppress them, on the other hand might help. A fact all too many people seem all to happy to ignore.
Just as much as gun control advocates fail to realize that such laws have to be enforced with guns - and governments have killed and oppressed far more than individual citizens. It's not like those weapons are being removed as well. Unless you're advocating global pacifism, this is a bogus argument.
I'll second that with reservations: 1) too similar to MSNBC. :-) 2) As mentioned by others, the real benefit of Linux and other OS's is openness, and I think it can be argued that its stability is only a side-effect that came about because it was a top priority for the people who wrote it. Not coincidentally, the same priority is shared by the general readership (writership?) of slashdot.
BTW since Windows is targeted at the average user that does not know that computers really can be stable, it does not seem likely that Microsoft feels any need to enlighten their users. Not while they're rolling in dough, that is. It does not make sense in my mind that Windows will ever become truly stable until M$ is losing money.
A sick society is one were hundreds of kids are killed every day in the United States, but we can't do anything about it since the instruments or their murders are already illegal. Uzis are illegal, therefore, officially, the murder of a poor minority child must not have happened. Only when a rich white kid is killed by one of the few legal firearms remaining, so we get outraged.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Still reeling? Shocked that someone else in the community might have a different political opinion than you? In case you haven't noticed by now, this is a meritocracy. We don't judge people by their political views, religious beliefs, ethnicity, or anything else like that. The only thing that matters are acts. It is the strength of this community that people with different beliefs can work together to create something better. Eric has done tremendous things for free and open software. What have you done?
If I can't defend my liberty, then I have no liberty.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
>I personally believe all weapons including
>nuclear arsenal should be allowed.
I would pity the day Americans are allowed to walk the streets with concealed nuclear missiles tucked under their belts. I can imagine interesting scenes of accidental discharge......
Check out gnoghurt from RHAD at http://www.labs.redhat.com/gnoghurt and Video4Linux.
It would be fair to say that Linux's uptime is best measured in days (or maybe even weeks), while Windows' uptimes should probably be measured in hours. Saying that Linux's uptimes should be measured in years is akin to saying that people's heights should be measured in kilometers or miles. (But it's not quite the same -- after all, there are several boxen with multiyear uptimes, but not many. Obviously, there aren't any people who are KMs tall.)
It just breaks my heart to see the Good Guys (ESR is definitely one of them) lying. Being one of the Good Guys doesn't give you the right to do things that aren't good. It's not only morally corrupt, but intellectually corrupt as well, and it ultimately cheapens the cause you're advocating for.
You're a suburbanite.
Nop, no kidding...it says so at ESR's website, go check it out at www.tuxedo.org somewhere in there it's a list of all the projects he is/has been involved in
Vox
Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their messanger...
Nothing to do with linux development? I don't know about the kernel itself, but he has created, modified or participated in:
:) but I belive in giving credit where credit is due.
Fetchmail
keeper
sitemap
harvester
and some languages, like:
intercal
pilot
cupl
and a bunch of other stuff...just do a grep for his name or initials in your linux box...you'll find a bunch.
BTW, I don't even now ESR, and actually don't enjoy the interviews he does much (is always the same one
Vox
Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their messanger...
First as the subject says, GNOME is NOT a window manager. It is a window environment. It usually runs on top of the window manager enlightenment (which is still in beta/alpha version and has more bugs then GNOME). Also, unfortunately, Red Hat doesn't make it to easy to pick another window manager. I use Red Hat at home, and it took me awhile to use another window manager, because every time I changed it, somehow enlightenment came back!
I have had GNOME/enlightenment crash, but at least I didn't have to shutdown the machine. (Thanks to Linux). But I still lost important data. And as ESR has noted, that is what is important.
I mainly use Slackware with fvwm2 at work and at home (I have a multi-boot to RH or Slack). I'm very happy with both (Slack and fvwm) and I usually run for months. I turn off the machine for vacations and electrical storms.
I do agree that if RH is focusing on the non-server market, it should use another window manager/environment until it works all the bugs out of GNOME/enlightenment. Otherwise distributions such as Caldera that use KDE will probably become the perferred choice.
Coming from a Unix background, I'll stay with Slack (The REAL Linux distribution!). But I hope RH cleans up its act so that I can help others with something other then the MS stuff.
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
MTBC should be a standard measure, laboratory tested, and included along with all the benchmarks and checkboxes. Maybe if enough of us start using the term, it'll become a standard. ;)
Geeky modern art T-shirts
...anyway. The fact that they are armed and interspersed with the rest of the people puts a serious damper on tyrannical actions. The General and his family, friends, relatives, and subordinates have to live somewhere. Possibly next door to a member of the group being oppressed this week.
An determined man with a rifle is the most dangerous weapon in the world. I can see why dictators aren't fond of citizens owning guns.
Assassination is, after all, the ultimate heckler's veto.
Meanwhile, closer to home, the personal safety of gun control nuts depends heavily on the fact that criminals don't know they are unarmed. They are relying on an atmosphere created by their gun-owning neighbors for protection. If criminals knew who was unarmed, burglaries and muggings would go up dramatically for the completely unarmed. For gun control backers who don't believe or understand this argument, please prove your independence from the guns of hated conservatives and libertarians; put an "unarmed and proud of it" sign in your yard and on your car.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
This article reads like it was longer, more in depth, and then seriously hacked to pieces by an editor concerned with reaching his target audience. It ended up seeming very content-free, and very simplistic. As someone else said, I could feel my IQ falling as I read it.
Given the length and content of the interview, I don't really think that ESR were really who they wanted to interview, but that they didn't know it at the time. So it was chopped into something they could use, but wasn't good.
I think that they would probably have been better off just dropping the article entirely. ESR didn't seem like a good fit for them, period.
I mean, imagine what they would have done with an interview with RMS!
Developing Office Applications is a long way to
go. The Winbloze versions have a long roadmap,
and i dont think they are very stable.
Miguel de Icaza said once upon time:
Office Applications are only temporare on the
Linux road, after a few years they are replaced
by open source apps.
Check out KOffice, Abiword and Gnumeric in a few
years and you will *see*...
I think I lost a few IQ points for having read that interview... I mean, COME ON!
"I personally believe all weapons including
nuclear arsenal should be allowed"
these kind of remarks really scare me...it
seems to be something what a lot american
citizens believe to be good, in the sense that it provides more freedom...but look around, and note that this is definitely not the answer, in fact it only causes more terror. The wild west period is over (right?).....
J.