Caldera Releasing Lizard Source

I wonder how this will be received by brennanw · 1999-08-09 21:41 · Score: 3

Caldera seems to routinely get a lot of flack from the Linux community because it doesn't include 100% GPL'd software in its distribution. As far as I know, however, only Red Hat and one other (Debian? I think) can actually make that claim. So why is Caldera singled out?

So far, in the (few) responses to this thread, there has been one wholeheartedly positive response and the rest have ranged from "good but not enough" to "oh no it's the Linux Micro$oft, screw 'em, tattoo 'em, watch 'em burn."

Why?

Caldera is distributing their installer under something than the GPL. Heavens! Are you planning to go on a licensing ethnic cleansing rampage? Shall we omit every piece of software that isn't GPL'd? Well, say good-bye to Perl (Artistic) and XFree86 (can't remember that one). Don't bother ever trying to use WINE, because it ain't GPL'd! While we're at it, stop using Netscape immediately, because the source is not avaialable -- it's just free beer. And don't bother using Mozilla when it comes out, because it's distributed under the MozPL...

Now, I'm a big fan of the GPL -- I think it's probably one of the most important licenses out there today -- and I'm certainly happier when a software license is legitimately free software instead of merely "open source" (and there is a difference, yes there is). But the fact remains that long before corporate america became interested in Linux, long before Eric Raymond wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazzar," way back when, there were Linux users who didn't want to distribute their software under the GPL -- for whatever reason -- and chose another license. So it seems to me that the "GPL or die" mentality is simply not possible to apply consistently if you're using Linux.

Some companies seem to have very strong fears as to whether or not the GPL is a good license to use ALL THE TIME, and they're trying to experiment with others that provide many of the same benefits. Some of the licenses are a joke (I consider Apples "open source" license fairly useless, even today) and others need work (TollTech's QT license needed work, and still may need work) but are not horrible. The fact that a great many companies are even considering revealing their source code is something I consider nothing short of amazing, especially considering the state of the software industry at large (UCITA -- need I say more?)

This is not worth a holy war. It's just not worth it. Caldera makes a decent distribution for those of us who don't have the time to become Linux gurus, and if they haven't gone the 100% free software route yet, well, blasting them every time they come close but don't go far enough isn't going to make it happen. So calm down, take a deep breath, and go play with the latest kernel release.

--
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati

Re:I wonder how this will be received by The+Cheez-Czar · 1999-08-09 22:07 · Score: 1

Your a little off in your argument.

Its not the lack of all Caldera being GPL, but that (before now) a lot of their Distribution was not Open Source, that was the complaint of many.

Debian requires applications to be Open Source, not necessarily GPL. Otherwise, X, perl, and many others would not be in their main distribution.

There are a some that argue everything should be GPL, but more are happy with any open source license.

--
This Signature does Not Exist !! FNORD
Re:I wonder how this will be received by scrytch · 1999-08-09 22:15 · Score: 2

Actually perl is a special case because you have a choice of Artistic or GPL. The philosophy behind that is "If you make any changes, you better not break it, or if you do, then you better let everyone fix it."

But mostly I am just sick to my stomach reading this crap and it's not limited to slashdot. I thought Free Software was about a choice one made about their own creations, the software they'd use, and if there wasn't an open alternative available, it was about making one. Now it's all about thousands of people whining and ranting and poiting, "gimme gimme gimme". They don't want to write any code to provide free alternatives, they just demand others give away their work for nothing. Demonizing one of Linux's biggest boosters for not giving every single value-add away gratis is just shameful.

--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:I wonder how this will be received by Carl · 1999-08-09 23:23 · Score: 1

There seems to be some misunderstanding in your posting about the difference between Free Software and the GPL. Software that is released under the GPL is Free Software (and the GPL makes sure that it stays that way which is very important to some people). But all software that is release under a license (or put in the public domain) that gives the users of that software the freedom to use use, study, adapt, redistribute and improve software is considered Free Software. (Please read What is Free Software? on the GNU web site.)

I don't know where you got the notion that people want them to release the code under the GPL since that might be impossible if they have used Qt which is released under the QPL. The QPL is to restrictive to be combined with the GPL. (Which doen't say that Qt isn't Free Software!). The only thing that people seem to want is that it is released as Free Software and that they don't invent Yet Another Public License, which would only add to the confusion of what Free Software is really about. Nobody says that they must release under the GPL if they cannot legally do so.
Re:I wonder how this will be received by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 23:29 · Score: 0

I'll second that. If half the kneejerkers on Slashdot actually produced some fucking contribution, then we'd have ten times the amount of Open-Source software out there. Except spouting holier-than-thou crap is far easier than sitting down and actually contributing code, under any goddamn license. As if the dickwit yesterday who claimed someone should clone Wavefront's Maya under the GPL had the -slightest- damn clue what he was talking about.
If I write code, and give out the source, its MY fucking perogative what license I put on it. And if some arsehole thinks he's automatically entitled to bitch if its NOT under a GPL license, well, I'd just prefer to argue the case personally, with my (UK size ten) combat boots on. Like scrytch says, all too often it seems as if its more 'gimme, gimme, gimme' than anything resembling a philosophy. They just seem one step removed from the kids who had every pirate copies single Amiga game going, and rationalised it because 'information wants to be free'. Just too fucking greedy to pay market value, that's all. Plus it was great little insider's club, all very cool and trendy, and on the edge.
Now its crap about profits, distribution-specific features, license terms (not being free 'enough'...), and hurling 'another Microsoft' at anyone that doesnt hand over the goodies fast enough. Its a great little insider's club, all very cool and trendy, and on the edge...

But at the end of the day if Mr Stallman wants to claim that non-free software is immoral, then that's fine. I'm an anarchist, and I believe he has that right. If company X wants to release open source code under a non-GPL license, then that's fine. I'm an anarchist, and I believe they have that right. If Microsoft want to charge 100 pounds for a broken, closed product, then that's fine. I'm an anarchist, and I believe they have that right. If company X, or Microsoft, or nice Mr Stallman, or Mr Typical Anonymous Coward try to FORCE me to accept their way as being the only way, then tough shit. They'd be in for a fight.
Re:I wonder how this will be received by brennanw · 1999-08-09 23:36 · Score: 2

No, I understand the difference between Free Software and the GPL very well. The GPL is free software, not all free software is GPL'd. I get that. I am responding mostly to all the people who are screaming "GPL GPL GPL" at the top of their lungs without acknowledging that they're singling out Caldera for a practice that is not terribly uncommon for most Linux distros.

For example, most Linux distros include the linux version of Netscape Communicator, which isn't free software at all -- it's not even open source, as far as I know! _Mozilla_ is, but the current non-beta releases of NS Communicator are simply "free beer", not "free speech."

I get the notion that people want them to releast the code under the GPL because I'm seeing posts that say "yet another stupid license -- why can't they just release under the GPL and be done with it!" and "Caldera will never get the support of the Linux community until they release software under the GPL."

--
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Re:I wonder how this will be received by alhaz · 1999-08-09 23:38 · Score: 2

It's interesting that you should point out RedHat as being "100% GPL"

Nobody has yet seen the source code for the DiskDruid partitioner.

--
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Re:I wonder how this will be received by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 12:27 · Score: 0

Now it's all about thousands of people whining and ranting and poiting, "gimme gimme gimme". They don't want to write any code to provide free alternatives, they just demand others give away their work for nothing.

This is such bullshit. 90%+ of every distribution that companies like Caldera and SuSE are putting together was given to them under the very generous terms of free software licenses like the GPL, BSD, etc. Almost all the value of any Linux distro consists of these truly free tools, and not the installer.

At least Red Hat plays the game fairly by making their own (relatively small) contributions non-proprietary, just like all the other developers, as compensation for the enormous software contribution that others have made to their distro business. This is the sort of sharing which free software developers rightfully expect of one another. I don't think it's too much to expect (morally, not legally, of course) of *ANYONE* who's distributing Linux for a profit.

Caldera and SuSE are just parasites who take everyone's free code and effectively lock it up into a proprietary distro (read: OS) by binding it with a proprietary installer. Until they abandon these sleazy tactics (and I hope this announcement by Caldera is really a move in that direction, and not merely another "Open Source" marketing ploy), I'll stick with Debian or Red Hat.

Alex Berkman

p.s. good to hear that Storm Linux will be using the GPL for their tools. I'll keep an eye on that one now.

Re:That sinking feeling... by RISCy+Business · 1999-08-09 21:49 · Score: 1

Get clued.

No, I'm worried about the core principles, focus, and design of Linux. Not whether or not it has pretty GUIs. I won't use NT4 for servers, and I won't use Linux for servers if it's goals are to be like NT4. I don't give a damn if it is more stable; I want something that was designed for servers. Not your hotshit game machine.

-RISCy Business | Rabid System Administrator and BOFH

--
your company here.
shelby != ford

Re:*yawn* by Scola · 1999-08-09 21:51 · Score: 1

You are dumb(tm).

The GPL isn't the perfect license. I for one like the BSD license far better. Apache, *BSD, XFree, ect. all have non-GPL license and have gotten wonderful community support.

You obviously never tried to read, debug, trace your way through, ect. the Mozilla code. It was butt ugly. Hence it got little support. The license was irrelevent.

Gestapo Public License by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 21:38 · Score: 0

Bah, people who want to release TRULY free software release it into the public domain.

Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-08-10 23:02 · Score: 1

I've been using it since 1996.

I've been using it since 1993.

If you are the AC who thinks that there is no commercial grade software for Linux, then you are pretty deluded, regardless of how long you've been out there. Just as two examples, Word Perfect 8 and Star Office 5.1 are definitely on par with their versions on Windows. They are also comparable to their competitors products on those platforms.

Re:Why make installer GPL? by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-08-10 23:05 · Score: 1

What is the BFD reason you don't want a swap partition? If you really don't want to use swap, do the install with a tiny swap partition, then do swapoff and you can get rid of the partition. I still fail to see any reason why you would want to run without any swap space available though.

I will reply calmly.. by haggar · 1999-08-11 02:51 · Score: 1

even though you are trying so hard to piss me off. I will mention just one of the reasons: I am short of primary partitions on a drive.

--
Sigged!

Re:I will reply calmly.. by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-08-11 04:28 · Score: 1

I am short of primary partitions on a drive.

Any reason why you can't put some of your stuff on extended partitions? I often use 7 or 8 partitions on a drive. I've never tried putting swap or my root file system on an extended partition though.
You could also use the old trick of adding another hard drive as a workaround. Drives are cheap these days.

Slackware! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-11 13:11 · Score: 0

Maybe you can use Slackware, then? It has a simple way to pre-configure which packages you want installed (see the .pat files). Its default X setup doesn't have a stupid penguin in a red hat, or whatever Caldera uses. You could even modify the relevant package once, and from then on install it with your company's logo there! And Slackware is neither overly commercial (copy it all you like) nor overly free (still includes useful stuff like XV and Netscape).

Re:That sinking feeling... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-11 13:35 · Score: 0

Hmm... so what if I want neither a desktop nor a server OS, but a workstation OS? You know, keep the stability, but give me some cool graphics capabilities to do useful things. Oh, and assume that I have a brain (I know, that's hard to believe) and can use it to administer the system, but would rather use it to develop new things.

I certainly do use the extended partition by haggar · 1999-08-11 17:13 · Score: 1

..as a matter of fact, I once had RedHat, Openlinux, Debian, slackware and Suse multibooting.. plus the DOS. And I had only one drive. As you can imagine, I had to use the extended partition quite a bit. But I still need to put other (non-linux) OSs in primary partitions.
(I feel the next incoming question "but why do you want to boot in so many different OSs?" :o)

--
Sigged!

Re:I certainly do use the extended partition by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-08-11 22:16 · Score: 1

Actually I have possibly a better suggestion... You might find something called a "Lock and Load Tray" to be useful. What they are is a 5.25" drive bay frame with a pull-out middle part that fits around a normal 3.5" IDE type drive (there are SCSI versions available, but generally more expensive). If you buy two (or more) of them, then you can easily swap drives, which gives you a very flexible multi-boot solution. Lock and load trays generally sell between $10 and $25 each.

Another solution to needing to multiboot a lot of different distros is what I do... have a lot of machines. I have machines running various versions of Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera and FreeBSD, etc. I've also got non-PC machines such as Sparcstations and Macs... Its really more of a 'concurrent boot' than multi-boot I suppose.

Sounds good by haggar · 1999-08-12 02:30 · Score: 1

I actually remember seeing those trays somewhere, but the prie was a bit exaggerated. Nevertheless, I may consider using them.
For now, swapoff.vi /etc/fstab.fdisk.swapon is the cheaper solution :o) Dis I say I am also short of money?

--
Sigged!

Re:Sounds good by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-08-12 02:41 · Score: 1

I actually remember seeing those trays somewhere, but the prie was a bit exaggerated.

They are available at a couple of retail places around here (midwest US) for between $10 and $25 depending on the place. You can find them mail order for similar prices.

Nevertheless, I may consider using them.

They would seem to be an ideal solution to the need for lots of primary partitions.

For now, swapoff.vi /etc/fstab.fdisk.swapon is the cheaper solution :o) Dis I say I am also short of money?

No... as a matter of fact, I seem to recall that you were the guy saying you were going to buy an Athlon 650... Of course that might just be where you spent all your money...
Re:Sounds good by haggar · 1999-08-13 13:20 · Score: 1

You can look at it from the other point, to: if one saves money by replacing hardware solutions with simple commands, she/he can afford a kickass CPU, after a "while". :o) I was actually stating (later in the same thread) that I am considering a copper-based K7. By the time I have the money for it in the budget, they'll become affordable.

Strange how a thread evolves :o)))))))) (Was it installer source?)

--
Sigged!

Re:That sinking feeling... by Scola · 1999-08-09 21:56 · Score: 1

No, you should get a clue.

Linux was *NOT* designed to be a server OS. In fact it was really designed to be a desktop OS, one for Linus' desktop. Hell UNIX wasn't designed for servers, it was designed for resource sharing on a machine (which does map nicely to servers, but isn;t the same thing).

If you want something that was "designed for servers" try some Mainframe OSes, or perhaps VMS.

Making a system easy to install does not make it stable, nor does it make it less appropraite fro servers.

In summary, you're an idiot.

Re:Coupla questions by emhaka · 1999-08-09 21:59 · Score: 1

Obviously, you have never used the Lizard.

The mouse is detected the first time you
move it.

Well, and the detect screen is definitely
multi-lingual ;-)

Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by scrytch · 1999-08-09 22:00 · Score: 2

Yeah that's what prevented KDE from being released under GPL. Oh wait. It is.

Read. Understand. Post. In that order

--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.

Darn Caldera! by RoLlEr_CoAsTeR · 1999-08-09 22:11 · Score: 1

I went to the page, the source for lizard won't even be available until Sept. 3rd. :( By then who knows what'll of happened and how many times they've decided to change the way it'll be released (if at all still).
Yeah, my thoughts are, if they're going to do something, they ought to do it right, and just go ahead and release the source now. I'm thinking, if they're so sincere about Open Sourcing, and if they'd really been in the true spirit of Linux, they would not even be having this press release now........ they'd have already open sourced everything, and it'd be no biggie. However, apparently they don't quite understand what they're dealing with, and what they're missing out on.

--

Insert mind here.

Re:Darn Caldera! by Roberto · 1999-08-10 00:19 · Score: 1

One good reason that comes to mind for this is because Nancy must be getting a gazillion mails asking when wil they release. Well, it's in 4 weeks, stop emailing ;-)

Re:Caldera by redactor · 1999-08-09 22:12 · Score: 1

Something few people know... Caldera was once based on the Red Hat base... during that time of "collaboration," Caldera (not RH) wrote RPM.

Re:That sinking feeling... by Xkill_ · 1999-08-09 22:23 · Score: 1

you dont think that people wont incorporate both installers, and maybe give the user a choice? why not, is it not a valid possibility. I agree with you in that i dont really want lizard, but who knows, maybe someone will take lizard and totally revamp it and make it nice. Then again they could take it and totally make it worse than it is. My point being that the possibilities are endless of what could happen, and to say that you would quit useing linux because a few script kiddies get their hands on it is absurd. And what makes you think that all linux distro's are going to try to be desktops. Isnt linux's strength in the server end of things? so why would linux forget its roots? you got me.

--

So what about nwclient? by Gleef · 1999-08-09 22:25 · Score: 2

The piece from Caldera I'm most want them to open is nwclient, that way the community can get it to actually work for once. I got a copy of OpenLinux 2.2 specifically for NDS access months ago, and in their two updates since then, it still won't work for more than a few minutes at a time.

Yeah, they'd have to talk Novell into letting them open it, but having an open client would really help Novell. It won't compromise security, since that's all on the server end for them, and it will allow more users to access Novell servers.

----

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.

Re:So what about nwclient? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 00:05 · Score: 0

Novell wont allow NDS to go open. There is a project to get an open NDS clone but its a big job. Until then If you use NDS Novell has you by the balls.
Re:So what about nwclient? by Barn_Owl · 1999-08-10 00:56 · Score: 1

I agree we need the nwclient public. As far as the NDS part goes it is irrelavent as novell already ships there win client free. Maybe we can convice caldera to release there full client source.

That's the problem by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 22:30 · Score: 0

Technically speaking, much of KDE is illegal. One cannot legally link Qt and KDE together. No one has sued yet, but if the author if Lyx chooses to sue every person using or distributing kLyx, it's in his rights.

Sounds good by haggar · 1999-08-12 02:31 · Score: 1

I actually remember seeing those trays somewhere, but the prie was a bit exaggerated. Nevertheless, I may consider using them.
For now, swapoff.vi /etc/fstab.fdisk.swapon is the cheaper solution :o) Did I say I am also short of money?

--
Sigged!

Predicitons by Dijital · 1999-08-09 20:54 · Score: 1

Why do I feel a future bloated, copied Micro$oft product...? Maybe just life experience...

--
Diji
"I came, I saw, I WTF'd!"

Re:Predicitons by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:04 · Score: 0

Funny I don't. I feel more like the next MS Client for NetWare will now now work with NKFS.

Re:Democracy? Since when? by Uller78 · 1999-08-12 13:10 · Score: 1

I don't believe the free software community is an aristocracy... Aristocracy denotes a certain level of control and superiority over the 'masses'. The people who write the software we use everyday have no control over the common man, as he is free to choose whatever he likes. In that sense, the free software community is a democracy.

One Word by i_hate_windows · 1999-08-09 20:54 · Score: 1

YEAH!!

Hmmm ... yet another license by LizardKing · 1999-08-09 21:01 · Score: 1

Looks like they're going to come up with another not quite free license for this. Ehy they can't just stick it out under the GPL I don't know. Even if there were grounds for not using the GPL, they're going to cop a lot of flak for not doing so. Just like Netscape and Troll Tech have for their licenses.
Chris Wareham

Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by Carl · 1999-08-09 23:00 · Score: 1

> Yeah that's what prevented KDE from being released under GPL. Oh wait. It is.
>
> Read. Understand. Post. In that order

But that is precisely the issue with KDE. It is released under the GPL and that means that I cannot ditribute it linked with Qt since Qt is not distributed under a license compatible with the GPL. Code released under the QPL is Free Software, but has to much restrictions to be linked against GPL code. (The fact that there are people distributing KDE binaries linked with Qt doesn't mean that it isn't illegal to do so.)

That is why we have the Harmoney project so we have a library that can be linked with KDE as a Qt replacement. And that is why people try to convince the KDE developers to use another license, possibly the GPL with an exception for Qt library, although that wouldn't make it compatible with other code released under the GPL. The best solution would be if Troll Tech released Qt under a license that is compatible with the GPL.
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by miquels · 1999-08-09 23:09 · Score: 1

Well no QT or harmony should be under the LGPL- otherwise, you end up with the situation that companies can only develop applications for KDE if they either release the source, or if they pay troll-tech. That would be a shame - all of Linux free, kernel, X, compiler, etc, but you have to pay some obscure company in Norway that has nothing to do with Linux perse to develop applications for it. Yuck. I'd rather pay Linus T. something.

--
Living is a horizontal fall
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by Midnight+Coder · 1999-08-09 23:33 · Score: 1

I agree there is an issue here. I'm not going to say whether the QPL is or isn't compatible with the GPL (Note for audience RMS who is far more civilized about the whole thing than many others says it isn't, others question this).

But assumming for the moment that they are incompatible, then I buy the argument that redistribution of KDE apps is legal so long as the authors haven't used GPL'd code without permission. Because the authors of said apps has given implicit permission (why else write a KDE app and put it on a public server and encourage people to redistribute it).

If someone wanted to do something useful they could make a list of questionable KDE apps (if any) and I would look into it further. (I'm sure we'll all be back here talking about it later in another KDE related article). But then again this is /., I suspect people would rather argue than do something more constructive here.

And that is why people try to convince the KDE developers to use another license
Doesn't the KDE Artistic License just keep on getting more and more popular :-)

That is why we have the Harmoney project so we have a library that can be linked with KDE as a Qt replacement
Not correct. Jo Dillon started the Harmony project before the QPL existed. He seems to be contributing more to KDE than Harmony nowadays so I guess he has found the QPL to remove the need for Harmony. (Note the Harmony list had been dead for months last time I checked)

The best solution would be if Troll Tech released Qt under a license that is compatible with the GPL.
I don't agree, or at least I'm going to require a lot convincing before I agree. The QPL is a nice license whereas the GPL is something of a monstrosity (read both to see what I mean), I'm beginning to think it's the GPL that needs work.

Goodnight, I'd rather be coding.
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 00:01 · Score: 0

Why do you have to be such a bunch of communist elitists? Don't you see that getting Linux on every desktop and replacing Windows is a good thing? I personally don't care if Caldera charges over $100 for their product. I don't care if they don't release the source code to a little minute portion of their product. If it gets Linux on the desktop, doesn't compromise the stability that we've come to expect from Linux (which by the way, KDE has but GNOME doesn't), and creates demand for commercial software companies to start porting over their applications, then that's good.

I work with Linux on servers and workstations, but I have never thought it was a good system for home use or general office use. Why? Because there are no commercial-grade products for it. You can't get a single piece of software for Linux that has the same functionality as any of the applications designed for Windows. Guess why? You need resources (people and money) to build an application. Guess who has those resources? Corporations. So get used to it. If Linux is ever going to be more than a replacement for Windows NT Server, then it will need corporate support. And corporations, as unfortunate as it may seem to some of you, do need to make money. You don't make money by releasing your source code and letting your competitors use it.

As long as the base Linux system and tools stays completely GPL license, or even better, BSD licensed, then I will be happy, because you will always have the option of using any number of Linux distributions (competition! it's good!).

That's just my 2 cents...
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by Uart · 1999-08-10 03:24 · Score: 1

why is that bad? Open Source is good, which was the point..

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 05:59 · Score: 0

use linux a little longer please.
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by Ray+Dassen · 1999-08-09 21:16 · Score: 2

Lizard uses Qt, so putting it under the GPL would result in another KDE license issue. Qt's license (be it the old non-free one or the new free QPL) is not compatible with the GPL.
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by Zinho · 1999-08-09 21:17 · Score: 1

I wonder if the "not yet tried in court" status of the GPL is why they haven't already decided to use it (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here...). I can see them talking to their lawyers about how to avoid seeing an M$ port of their NKFS code.
Not that it would stop Microsoft anyways..

-Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

--
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 20:30 · Score: 0

Don't be a smartass. I've been using it since 1996.

Caldera by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:03 · Score: 0

The comment about the license for this thing rocks - "working closely with the open source community blah blah" .... no hard info. Typical Caldera.

Re:Caldera by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:08 · Score: 0

Are there any other "packages" in the Caldera distribution that are not Open Source Licensed? Or were these the only two in question.

What package format do they use? RPM? or thier own?
Re:Caldera by Suydam · 1999-08-09 21:17 · Score: 1

they use RPMs.

--

Werd.

Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by RNG · 1999-08-09 21:13 · Score: 2

Caldera needs to wake up and realize that the only way to be fully accepted into the Linux community is to contribute (open source software) to the community. They should look at the examples set by VA, RedHat and Suse for a few successful examples of this. It seems that whenever they release a piece of software as open source, they do so reluctantly after some pushing by the community.

We should gently remind Caldera of this fact and point out that having the support of the community is beneficial to all of us (including Caldera). While we're at it, let's remind them of the fact that they need us more than we need them. There are at least 20 other linux distributions out there and while Caldera has some interesting products, they now are in an open market and should play by the rules.

Having said that, it seems that with some prodding from the community, they seem to (occasionally) get this point ...

Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by PigleT · 1999-08-09 22:57 · Score: 1

It will bomb among the Linux savvy, but will be a hit in the Windows croud (which is much larger...)

..which is an inherently Bad Thing, imo. I don't WANT a crowd of ex-windows-thought-I'd-try-it-out people knocking my door down asking for support, "piglet, what's linux? what's lilo? does it look like windoze??', simply because there are more of them; I want there to be more intelligentsia than dumbos. Who said Microsoft's old company mission statement was right??

Let's let linux conquer both the server AND the desktop worlds equally. Then I'll be happy.

Incidentally, what about SuSE and YaST?

~Tim
--

--
~Tim
--
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by biafra · 1999-08-09 23:32 · Score: 1

They should look at the examples set by VA, RedHat and Suse for a few successful examples of this.
IIRC SuSe keeps both SaX, and YaST closed sourced. It's a real shame to since I found SaX a nice way to configure X.

--
:wq
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 23:59 · Score: 0

I don't quite know where to begin.

First, Caldera is targeting a completely different market than RedHat -- specifically corporate. Caldera has some advantages that RedHat and others don't have and they'd be foolish to give them away at this point.
Their main advantages (as far as corporate America goes) is Novell expertiese and DR-DOS. Novell Netware 3.x is still a very big influence in corporate LANs. While no one in their right mind is installing it now,
there are numerous installations that have it installed already and are looking for an easy migration path. Many of these really don't want to go to Microsoft for one reason or another (price is a big reason). Linux
does an outstanding job of file/print serving and Caldera's superior tools and integration with Netware make them a top candidate -- if they can get a couple of other items ironed out.

Second, as a sysadmin for a large division of a Fortune 500 company, I *don't care about Open Source version of Lizard!*. What I *need* to get Linux installed on desktops in the company is a configurable
installer. I need to be able to feed it a script that says "install these packages, but not these". These moronic "Workstation/Server" install choices don't cut it. I need a tool to create a template for which packages
to install -- nothing more. Okay, maybe I'd like to customize the messages and splash screen. My users won't know Caldera from Hang Sung Electric and if I could put our corporate logo there instead, they'd ask
less questions (meaning I'd get more done).

Please don't tell me that with the source code I could do all that. I know. I don't want to have to get down to that level for something like this. Open Source is not an end-all be-all. There are some places where it
isn't needed at all. I don't even want to go into GPL "everywhere". That's just plain wrong.

Microsoft has a nice tool for doing this for the Windows installer as well as their IE Admin Kit for Internet Explorer. I think Netscape has something similar for Nav/Comm as well.

I've always felt that Open Source was about getting the right tools for the job. Source code is great. I love being able to fix, change and rearrange. But in this case I'd much rather have a config tool for the installer
than the source code.

For the record, I much prefer the Ghostscript way of doing things. Keep the latest/greatest your own and GPL the last major rev. You give back to the community and can still make $$ by coding.
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by datazone · 1999-08-10 02:05 · Score: 1

Can you say Kickstart?

If you knew anything about what you were talking about you would shut up and go back under the rock that spawned you. If you was to install Caldera Openlinux on your companies computers, and you want to use Lizard, then you will have to purchase a seperate cd for each computer (read your EULA) or else download the files from their ftp site and use the crappy installer that it has with it, which just went and defeat your whole arguement.

--
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 03:18 · Score: 0

Sorry to tell you this but that's the way the majority of the Linux crowd is NOW. (Install Linux because I hate MS) or some other stupid reason besides using it because it serves them a purpose. About you wanting to see more intelligent Linux users; fat chance, it's only going to get worse as more and more ex-Windows users start to install Linux.
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by jgennick · 1999-08-10 03:19 · Score: 1

>It will bomb among the Linux savvy, but will be
>a hit in the Windows croud (which is much
>larger...)

I agree, and I am one of the latter (the Windows crowd). I've tried SUSE and RedHat, and have never been able to get a Lisa install to work out right. I've always had problems with graphics, pcmcia support, ppp support, and so forth. I purchased Caldera's distribution based on the strength of their installer. It was great. It's the first time I've ever gotten Linux up and running with a GUI (presumably X, but who cares). I can't blame them one bit for not wanting to give that away. That was a competitive advantage. Installers like that will make Linux accessible to the average person.

--Jonathan
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by Suydam · 1999-08-10 00:30 · Score: 1

simply because there are more of them; I want there to be more intelligentsia than dumbos. Who said Microsoft's old company mission statement was right??
Let's let linux conquer both the server AND the desktop worlds equally. Then I'll be happy.

In my eyes, your 2 statements blatently contradict each other.
In order for Linux to "conquer both the server AND the desktop worlds equally" (your words), we need a tool like Lizard. You NEED something for the "dumbos" (your words) to use...and you need people just trying it out and asking questions like "What is Lilo, and why doesn't it work?". It's sad but true.

--

Werd.
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by Arandir · 1999-08-10 00:34 · Score: 2

"...the only way to be fully accepted into the Linux community is to contribute (open source software) to the community."

All distros are equal, but some distros are more equal than others.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by Blue+Lang · 1999-08-10 01:13 · Score: 1

installer. I need to be able to feed it a script that says "install these packages, but not these". These moronic "Workstation/Server" install choices don't cut it. I need a tool to create a template for which packages to install -- nothing more.
There are _many_ tools out there with which to make your own installation scripts. Check www.freshmeat.net/search.php3 for a few. -- Blue

--
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 07:16 · Score: 0

With all due respect, Caldera has supported Linux. It's just that they haven't hyped it up recently.

Ever take a look at who wrote most of the IPX protocol support in the kernel for instance?
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee by Deega · 1999-08-09 21:28 · Score: 2

While we're at it, let's remind them of the fact that they need us more than we need them. There are at least 20 other linux distributions out there and while Caldera has some interesting products, they now are in an open market and should play by the rules.

There are more people who have NOT chosen a Linux distro than people who have... If you catch my drift. This means Caldera can essentially do whatever they please. Prediction: Caldera goes public after many people find Redhat too archaic. The Linux for the Windows user.

It will bomb among the Linux savvy, but will be a hit in the Windows croud (which is much larger...)

Who's left? by kmj9907 · 1999-08-09 21:14 · Score: 1

That's cool that they're doing that. What other distros still use proprietary software? Doesn't SuSE have a proprietary installer, too?

kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.

--

kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.

Re:Who's left? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 23:44 · Score: 0

Source for YaST (SuSE's install/admin tool) is available (and on the CDs), but it is under a license that controls redistribution to prevent people from selling SuSE (e.g. Cheapbytes) or creating & selling SuSE derivatives. It may or may not be a smart move for them, but it certainly isn't popular. It's hard to say how much revenue RH has lost from having it's distributions sold through other channels (Cheapbytes, bundled with books, etc.).
Re:Who's left? by Suydam · 1999-08-09 21:21 · Score: 1

yeah...i think they have something called "Lisa" ...but I haven't actually installed anything but Red Hat and Debian in a while....so I might be mis-remembering.

--

Werd.
Re:Who's left? by Suydam · 1999-08-09 21:31 · Score: 1

wait a second...i think I'm wrong.
Lisa may have been caldera's old installer. Yikes! SOrry for the confusion.

--

Werd.

*yawn* by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:15 · Score: 0

It's a step in the right direction but don't stop there. Go GPL or go home. Seriously, Mozilla didn't go far enough and look at the poor public support it has sustained. Only via the GPL can you enjoy the kind of overwhelming support that Linux itself has enjoyed.

Re:*yawn* by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 07:20 · Score: 0

Nah, the lack of a GPL license isn't why Mozilla hasn't taken over the world yet... the lack of working code is more like it.
Re:*yawn* by Suydam · 1999-08-09 21:24 · Score: 1

Go GPL or go home. Seriously, Mozilla didn't go far enough and look at the poor public support it has sustained.

Faulty logic. I refuse to believe that the only reason Mozilla didn't receive "public support" is its license choice. It seems every time I read something about why the mozilla project has failed (and I don't necessarily agree that it HAS failed) I'm reading about code complexity, project sexiness, and other stuff....
that said, it still would have been nice if Caldera went with the GPL....

--

Werd.
Re:*yawn* by jtn · 1999-08-09 21:24 · Score: 1

Oh please. The GPL is not the end all and be all of software licenses. Apache isn't under GPL (thank goodness) and look at the overwhelming support that it has enjoyed.

Open source? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 22:30 · Score: 0

It's always drove me spare ever since the first time that Caldera arrived on the scene. These people have yet to grasp the market they work in. They make all the right noises but make not actual contribution to the community as a whole. Redhat always releases there source BEFORE they bring out a distro, in beta and above all GPLed. So do most other organisation in this wonderful world of ours. Caldera have always taken freely from the work we put in, and produce expensive, widely commericalised, and "oh christ, not another bloody licence"ed products, releasing the source way after they've had the cache (need grave) of producing the best commercial distro out there. Drives me mad... Never did see the source for dr-dos either.

Re:pretty....useless by Baagii · 1999-08-09 22:35 · Score: 1

I had heard all about this new & cool Caldera 2.2 installation, and wanted to try it for myself. I have to agree that I found it lacking in a couple of key ways, although surely they won't be that tough to fix... (especially if Caldera has the guts to GPL).

/dev/modem and /dev/cdrom weren't set up at all (that could be challenging for all the newbies flocking to the Lizard), sound was very difficult to configure on my laptop (sndconfig is a truly wonderful thing), and I also got the LI on Lilo (had to boot from a floppy and fix lilo manually -- Lizard didn't prompt, as Redhat does, for where to install the boot record, just tried to install it on /dev/hda5, the partition with linux on it... the old master boot record that I'd had set up to boot between linux and windows now was apparently left with nothing to point to and just burped when I tried to reboot). Also, Lizard didn't prompt me to set up a boot disk... I was just luck that the one I'd made with a RedHat install worked.

Difference by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 22:35 · Score: 0

There's a big difference between Perl's, X's, etc. freer-than-GPL licenses, and Qt's and other OSI-certified almost-free licenses. Most of us fear Caldera will go with the latter, rather than the former. The nearly-free licenses, in my experience, are generally worse as proprietary. They are a wolf in sheeps clothing. Personally, I prefer the original wolf.

Please, don't worry, be happy... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 22:46 · Score: 0

There is no such thing as core principles and focus except one: more choice and satisfaction for everyone. So if Caldera's thing doesn't suit you, by all means, please, go elsewhere. There is: RH, SuSe, Debian, and a gazilon others. If that's not enough - START YOUR OWN - Linus doesn't mind nor do I. If this is still not enough - please call your mommy.

Installer Source by HiThere · 1999-08-09 22:53 · Score: 1

This is great! I don't "insist" that the installer be GPL, and they have said that they intend to use a license that will be compatible with open source standards. Anything beyond that is for the benefit of the contributor.

I have great qualms about distro's that use non-open source installers, so much so that after buying OpenLinux 2.2, I had second thoughts and uninstalled it. But the opening of the installer will remove the dislike that I had in using it. (Maybe I'll install it on my machine at work).

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

But Surely... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 22:58 · Score: 0

If you LINK into the kernel, a GPL'ed entity, then the GPL applies to that code. In the case of a filesystem module, released as source, you ought to have no option but to GPL it -- it would have to live in the kernel right? Thus GPL must apply. Otherwise RMS will (or at least ought to) sue your ass. The userland code is, of course, different.

Re:But Surely... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 23:55 · Score: 0

Linus once declared that loadable modules are exempt from needing to be GPLd, though IMHO this should have been a modified GPL so that other contributors would only give that right knowingly.

And if you don't follow the GPL, any of the authors of the work can sue you for copyright infringement - RMS has no standing unless he's one of them, or unless you assign the copyright to the FSF (which they understandably advocate; they are far more able to do this than an individual author).
Re:But Surely... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 07:23 · Score: 0

> If you LINK into the kernel, a GPL'ed entity, then the GPL applies to that code.

No, only if you distribute a mix of your code and GPL code.

Re:Caldera wrote RPM - history has been rewritten! by A+Masquerade · 1999-08-09 22:59 · Score: 1

RPM has been the format used by RH since RH 2.0. When 2.0 came out Caldera wasn't even (effectively) a Red Hat reseller - they appeared rather later on the scene.

RPM (the program) started as a perl program, and migrated into C (I think at the time of the RH 3.03 release). It has been significantly upgraded since then. I was involved a little for much of that time and remember the development being driven by Erik Troan with some input from Donnie Barnes and nothing signicant that I remember from any Caldera person that hit the mailing list.

There seems to be some revision of history going on right now. Red Hat are toungue-tied by the IPO and Caldera are getting talked up a lot suddenly while half truths about Red Hat get put into the mix. I have this feeling that there is a very very nasty smell coming from somewhere and it seems to be from Caldera's direction.

[For fans of legalities, I am not associated with RH in any way other than being yet another coder who has bounced code off them. My only involvement with Caldera is that they kindly sent me a copy of OpenLinux since I had my name in the kernel]

Relax by Sloppy · 1999-08-09 23:00 · Score: 1

Linux is a general-purpose OS. If you don't want to use it as a desktop, that's fine -- just don't install those components.

I think you see Microsoft products trying to be all things to all people (and sucking as a result), and it makes you dread the same thing happening with Linux. Relax. As long as you have source, or if someone else who shares your values puts a distro together, there's nothing to worry about.

---
Have a Sloppy night!

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

ROFL by Midnight+Coder · 1999-08-09 23:03 · Score: 1

Hell now that was funny, I've got to know was it intentional?

Technically speaking, much of KDE is illegal. One cannot legally link Qt and KDE together.
Typical ignorant babble (The GPL permits linking, you probably want to complain about redistribution in which case I have an answer ready for you :-)

Anyway onto the funny part
No one has sued yet, but if the author if Lyx chooses to sue every person using or distributing kLyx, it's in his rights.
Well he would have to sue himself then. As Matthias Ettrich founded the Lyx project as well as (drumroll please....)

KDE.

Typical /. response by TedC · 1999-08-09 23:06 · Score: 1

Reading the previous 50 or so responses, I would say that at least half of them are negative. Caldera released some code, and all some people can do is whine about the license, complain that they should have done it months ago, or make up some feeble-minded theory on how having a better installer is going to ruin Linux. Talk about FUD -- I should have worn hip boots and bought a shovel...

TedC

Re:Typical /. response by jedidiah · 1999-08-09 23:15 · Score: 1

Certainly, since you ignored those that complained that despite the new eye candy, it doesn't even work as well as BugHat's installer.

As far as open code goes, it shouldn't have to be pulled out of a Linux VAR like pulling teeth and landmines in the license have the potential of negating the whole process.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Typical /. response by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 23:27 · Score: 0

Well, the funny is that they do not even know the license they complain about. I know that I don't know nothing, so I am! ;)
Re:Typical /. response by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 00:06 · Score: 0

Well this is probably the new microsoft tactic Filling all slashdot comment whith complaints to discourage Open Source Advocates

Re:That sinking feeling... by jedidiah · 1999-08-09 23:08 · Score: 1

That is NOT what the guy you were responding to was talking about but it was rather K.I.S.S. and function over form.

This is why Redhat DUMPED the idea of a GUI installer when it tried it long before Caldera came up with Lizard.

The damn thing should WORK first, the rest comes afterwards. Being rendered in pixels in stead of character cels doesn't do squat for the end user except give them a false sense of security.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Caldera wrote RPM - history has been rewritten! by HiThere · 1999-08-09 23:13 · Score: 1

My understanding (based on something I read 6 mo.s ago) is that Caldera wrote the original installer that was called RPM, but that Red Hat (well, someone [who?] at Red Hat) later rewrote it from scratch (not exactly an upgrade and not a translation [Perl into C? Best not to bother is my guess] but a total rewrite). However since the file format didn't change too drastically (at all?) and since it was a "Really Good Name"(tm), they kept the same name.

Low certainty on this, since my source is either Slashdot or the Red Hat site or LinuxToday, and I can't even remember whether it was an article, or someone writing in. But that's how I heard the story.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

GPL uber alles by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 23:54 · Score: 0

I think all of the /. community wishes that people would just stick with the GPL (and LGPL), because that's what got us this far in the first place

I think you are overstretching. Not everybody here thinks the GPL is the one and only free software license - because it isn't. It wasn't just the GPL that got us here. If I had to pick the 5 software projects that were the most influential and important to the current state of Linux, I'd choose BSD (the first non-proprietary *nix), the GNU tools, the Linux kernel, XFree86, and Apache. 3 of the 5 are not under the GPL.

Re:GPL uber alles by CodeShark · 1999-08-10 06:01 · Score: 2

I think you are overstretching.
Agreement on overstretching. I was actually referring specifically to the fact that Linux was released under the GPL., as opposed to the more recent proliferation of "open source licenses" (e.g., Netscape, Apple, Jikes, et. al).

--
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...

Democracy? Since when? by Roberto · 1999-08-10 01:35 · Score: 1

Free software is not a democracy, it has never been a democracy, it should not be a democracy, and I hope it will never be a democracy.

Free software is aristocracy. People who give away code have rights those who just consume that code lacks, and that is good.

The only differences with traditional aristocracies is that every aristocrat is at the same time a part of the mass, since everyone uses more code thn he produces, and that the masses are not opressed because they can become aristocrats by their own effort, or leave the system (and go back to commercial software).

That was the point: it is NOT a democracy. You have no rights over Caldera, you have no vote on their decisions, they have no duty towards you.

Re:That sinking feeling... by Scola · 1999-08-10 01:38 · Score: 1

If that was what he was talking about, then he's even dumber than I had previously thought.

I'm a big fan of the KISS principle. However, a GUI installer is an app. Having a different installer app doesn't destroy the KISS principle.

As for stuff working, the linux installers I've used recently (Redhat/Mandrake, SuSE, and Caldera) all work just fine, even on machines that give NT fits.

Finally, as for the all-knowing Redhat and their GUI installer, it sucked ass. It was truly horrible and was no easier to use than the nowmal non-GUI one. At the time, getting X to work on all video cards wasn't a given either. Times have changed, and Caldera offers real additional functionality in its installer.

Frame buffer vs. X by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 00:00 · Score: 0

I've never used it, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that it brings up X in VGA mode and doesn't use the frame buffer. When they release the source, you could probably port it to use Gtk's C++ wrapper library without too much pain.

Except that they didn't... by marcus · 1999-08-10 01:39 · Score: 1

...get the bugs out and get a jump on the competition. At least not on my boxes they didn't. Now that they're releasing the code, perhaps I'll be able to debug it and make a successful install. As it stands I've got RH, Slackware, Suse, and w95 running at home and all have an edge on Caldera simply because their installation tools worked and C's didn't.

I guess that the one way that they got the jump was that they got my money, but then so did the others.

--
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO

This "community" has gone downhill lately. by Roberto · 1999-08-10 00:04 · Score: 1

And downhill it has gone since I can remember.

A lot of the posts in this forum seem to indicate that some people believe they have some right to criticize Caldera for what software they release and for under what license they release such software.

Well, let me tell you this: you don't. They *own* that software. It's not any of your business.

You have no right whatsoever. All this "I won't accept it if it isn't GPL" makes me sick. Who died and gave you the right to accept or deny anything for the "community"?

You can just accept or refuse to accept it for you and for whoever may be unfortunate enough to have to live with your decisions, and that is it. Anything else is whining.

And that's why this "community" seems to me more pathetic every month. More people whine. Those who whine are louder. The whiners are getting more and more unreasonable about what they choose to whine about.

You don't like Caldera? Don't buy them. If enough people dislike them, they will go under. You want to criticize Caldera? Go ahead, that's your God given right. But don't do it on the basis that Caldera owes you anything, they don't.

Some even express their "concern" about the existence of a graphic installer? WHAT???
Hey, who's taking away from you the current RH installer? Is Caldera forbidding you from using dselect? I know this is obvious, but why then some people seem to have such a hard time understanding it?

I am pissed, and I hope it shows.

Anyway: thanks Caldera, you didn't have to, but thanks for doing it!

Disclaimer: My connection with Caldera is that I got a courtesy copy of Caldera 2.2, which has since found a nice home in a public school's computer.

Re:This "community" has gone downhill lately. by Uller78 · 1999-08-10 01:16 · Score: 1

That's the problem with democracy... people tend to whine. And people tend to whine about the people who whine. I don't see how you can make generalized comments about this "community", as you put it, based on a percentage of whiny people.

The thing that you have to remember is that the Linux community is a democratic community based on free speech. Free speech has its advantages and disadvantages, and as such, we must accept both the compliments and the criticisms of other people.

I'd rather that people whine about the things they don't like than have them blindly accept everything that comes their way.
Re:This "community" has gone downhill lately. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 09:12 · Score: 0

I'd rather that people whine about the things they don't like than have them blindly accept everything that comes their way.

True enough, but the danger is that people start to blindly whine at everything that comes their way.

-=>>*=- Matt Sk (Phydeaux)
Please pardon the anon account, my password's currently being dicky.

Re:Isn't RedHat promising a new proprietary instal by datazone · 1999-08-10 02:08 · Score: 1

its nice to spout rumors...

there will always be debian

--
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"

Same problems, also SMP issues by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 02:10 · Score: 0

I've noticed some of the same problems. I tried installing on a 22G IBM drive, and on a laptop with a 3.1G drive. The IBM drive was completely virgin. Both came up NO OPERATING SYSTEM on the first boot. I finally got that fixed by running LILO immediately after install.

Sound wasn't picked up on either system; I fished around for a bit looking for a sndconfig equiv, but no dice.

SMP doesn't appear to be supported. The board in question is an Abit BH6 with dual Celerons, admittedly a rather new combo, but BeOS likes it fine. I see no useful mention of SMP on Caldera's site. I suppose it might be a matter of recompiling the kernel, but I'm running into geek fatigue here. So far all the differences I've seen between Caldera and Red Hat work in Red Hat's favor, so why bother?

Looks like I'll be switching back to Red Hat, though I'd be interested to hear how SUSE and Debian do on SMP systems.

(Okay, I tried to sign up for a username, but it doesn't appear to be working.)

Re:Redhat Not 100% GPL by datazone · 1999-08-10 02:20 · Score: 1

what i think they mean to say is that you can take those non free stuff out of a RH distro cd, and it will still install fine, without you knowing anything was wrong. Remove Lizard, and you have nothing... except their old crappy text based installer which sucked harder than my left nut during a cold winter night in NYC while waiting for a bus thats 2 hours late during a 2 week snow storm.

--
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"

Re:Isn't RedHat promising a new proprietary instal by Samhain · 1999-08-10 03:09 · Score: 1

What do I place more faith in a rumour started on zdnet or the fact that everything that redhat has released has always been under the GPL.

I know what I would believe -- you can decide for yourself

Re:GPL by hadron · 1999-08-10 00:07 · Score: 1

Even RMS has agreed that the QPL used for licensing QT2.0 and onwards, is a "free" one. It's annoying, yes, but accaptable.

Re:Other distros? by Stormix+Technologies · 1999-08-10 00:11 · Score: 1

Alex:

To answer your side-question:

Stormix Technologies plans to release Storm Linux and all its related tools, including the installer, under GPL.

- Bruce Byfield, Stormix Technologies

Why make installer GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 00:21 · Score: 0

OK, I've kept quiet on this long enough. I'm finally going to come out and say it. I think insisting that every distribution have a GPL installer is a bad thing. Why? Because I think that the installer and configuration utilities (aside from variances in setups, placement of config files, etc.) is what most differentiates one distro from another. Why should they give it out? Doing so threatens their very profitablity. Red Hat did it, and we now have Mandrake, which didn't pay to develop Red Hat's distro adn installer, but now makes money from it. There's just so few advantages to it. How many people are going to make a bug fix for an installer, anyway? In my opinion, a distro has much to lose and very little to gain from making their installer GPL. If no distro can make a profit, say goodbye to your "world domination." There's always Debian and Slackware, but to penetrate the market in a big way (read, replace WinD'OHS), we're going to need an installer that a regular consumer can use easily. This is something that I don't think many volunteer developers are interested in making, because they (on the whole) are more comfortable with the power of a more complex installer. Comments welcome! bp

Re:Why make installer GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 05:52 · Score: 0

> Red Hat did it, and we now have Mandrake, which
> didn't pay to develop Red Hat's distro adn
> installer, but now makes money from it.

I guess just the way Red Hat makes money from
software that they didn't develop (mostly at least)
Re:Why make installer GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 07:24 · Score: 0

> I guess just the way Red Hat makes money from software that they didn't develop (mostly at
> least)

Red Hat makes money from the installer they wrote which they didn't develop???
Re:Why make installer GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 09:31 · Score: 0

Um, lots of people make bug fixes to their installers. I have a modified version of RH's installer that I use, just to do some custom stuff it didn't support. All the big government Linux shops (Fermi Lab, for example) buy Red Hat and modify the installer. Bastille Linux (a secured variant of Red Hat) is working on a modified installer. etc.

If the source is available, believe me, people will find a need to modify it ;-).
Re:Why make installer GPL? by haggar · 1999-08-10 18:50 · Score: 1

I personally dislike RHs installer, because it doesn't let me install without a swap partition. What a BS!! I don't know of any other distro that would constrain me in this way. So, I would really need to do some hacking there, but since I don't plan to install RH anymore for the time being, I don't bother myself doing so.

--
Sigged!
Re:Why make installer GPL? by C.Lee · 1999-08-10 20:07 · Score: 1

>I personally dislike RHs installer, because it doesn't let me install >without a swap partition. What a BS!!

And when you start running into problems because you don't have a swap partition don't come bitching to us about it, ok?

Linux Central? by nor · 1999-08-10 00:24 · Score: 1

Linux Central (http://www.linuxcentral.com) sells SuSE CDs for $1.95 which include YaST.

I purchased the SuSE 6.0 GPL CD, and yes, it does have it. Boots, installs using YaST, etc.

The YaST license says you have to get permission to distribute YaST on a "data carrier" if there's a charge for it. It explictly allows distributing YaST free of charge via FTP or mail.

Apparently (hopefully!) Linux Central got permission.

Maybe CheapBytes refuses to distribute it on principle? Or just plain laziness? I don't know.

--
-- Remove the BOING from my email address if you don't want it to bounce.

Re:The GPL is not QPL Compatible! by Arandir · 1999-08-10 00:29 · Score: 2

I've been trying to figure out for months now what people mean by "GPL compatibility". I've finally figured it out. A license is compatible if it can be CONVERTED into the GPL. Thus, BSD and X licenses are are compatible, because they have no clause forbidding an alteration to the license. QPL is not compatible because you are not allowed to alter it.

You have a BSD application. It statically links to a GPL (not LGPL) library. The instant you distribute it, you no longer have a BSD app, it has legally morphed into a GPL app.

But it's a one way street. The GPL specifically forbids altering it's license. If it's good enough for the GPL, why can't other licenses do the same? Or is there only room enough in the free world for one free license?

The QPL, MPL, etc., shouldn't be made GNU compatible. Instead, the GPL should be the one bending a little and specifically allowing linking to other licenses. Why the hell should QPL be the one forced into compatibility? I think it's time for the GPL to be compatible with every other license.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Haha, they were written by the same person! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 04:18 · Score: 0

Ettrich.

A New Way of Doing Business by Local+Loop · 1999-08-10 00:30 · Score: 1

What Caldera has done is combine the best of
the free and proprietary approaches to software.

They kept it proprietary until they could work
the bugs out, and get a jump on the competition
by being the only Linux Distro with an easy
install. Then they waited a little while longer
to be sure that they had nailed the REPUTATION
of being easy to install.

Now, after having gained most of the benefits of
proprietary software, they release the code and
look like good guys for doing so.

By the way, I'm not being sarcastic here. I
actually think that this is a workable way to
stay competitive and still give back to the
community.

-Loopy

Go artistic or go home by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 04:20 · Score: 0

The GPL isn't free, it's communist.

Re:Coupla questions by warmi · 1999-08-10 05:31 · Score: 1

Frame buffer ?

QT ( on Unix) works only with Xlib so here is your answer...

Re:That sinking feeling... by warmi · 1999-08-10 05:33 · Score: 1

Dude, solaris comes with optional graphics installer ... what's wrong with that ??

Re:Caldera wrote RPM - history has been rewritten! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 05:59 · Score: 0

Your understanding is quite wrong. RPM originally stood for RedHat Package Manager for a reason ;-).

Re:Caldera Rocks by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 06:38 · Score: 0

Amen Brother! OpenLinux 2.2 kicks ass (even if they dumped Lizard. I've tried a lot of Linux's, all the "big" ones and a few small ones. Open 2.2 runs faster on my machine (AMD K-62 300Mhz, 64Mb RAM)than the "pentium optimized" Mandrake. I bought a box set the day it came out and I have not had a core dump yet, with Red Hat (or RH based) I was getting a lot. I'll save a little HDD space for another version of linux to experiment... but I don't think anyone is close to beating Caldera for some time to come.

pretty....useless by Suydam · 1999-08-09 21:16 · Score: 1

but I think Lizard, while being gorgeous to look at basically lacks in some cases. The case I'm thinking of in particular is this:

It's targetted at "newbies" ... and I'll admit it was comforting to set up. BUT it screwed up some stuff that Red Hat's installer breezed through easily on my system. I've been using Linux for 5 years now....and I can work around the screwups and fix them....but I still think that RH6 is easier for the average joe to install.

Problems I saw with Lizard (and the Caldera install in general)....

LILO was broken in Caldera each time I tried to re-install it....could'nt get it to boot past "LI" ...i haven't had that problem on the box I was playing with since 1.2 kernels on old Slakware distros...again RH6 had no problems.
Couldn't get sound working in Caldera. Sndconfig in RH6 worked like a breeze for my on-board sound-chip. I maybe not have looked hard enough for a solution...because the Lilo problem caused me to abandon Caldera pretty quickly in favor of Red Hat....go figure. I still pine for the days of being a Slakware addict.
Package management with COAS is a far cry from package management with GnoRPM and/or Glint.

--

Werd.

GPL+IPO=EGGSHELLS by Deega · 1999-08-09 21:18 · Score: 1

Investors LIKE to hear that you have come up with something that gives you an edge over the competition. What they don't like to hear is that you are essentially giving that edge TO the competition. Just consider it a blessing that they are releasing the code at ALL. The Linux market is about to go through a dramatic change. You will see distros competing in a very cutthroat fashion. Caldera will need it's Edge if it wants to pull some mindshare from RH.

Re:GPL+IPO=EGGSHELLS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 07:15 · Score: 0

> Just consider it a blessing that they are releasing the code at ALL. If they release it under a license that prevents me from using it, I won't care.
Re:GPL+IPO=EGGSHELLS by kenzoid · 1999-08-09 21:31 · Score: 1

> You will see distros competing in a very
> cutthroat fashion.

*sigh...* The more cutthroat they get, the more tightly my fingers wrap around my Debian install CDs...

Charater garbage after post. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:20 · Score: 0

Whats with the signature?

Re:Charater garbage after post. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:39 · Score: 0

It is a geek code block. Go to The Code of the Geeks.

Lets hope they do the right thing. by Ih8sG8s · 1999-08-09 21:20 · Score: 1

Their alrticle does not not mention that they have decided on a license. Let's hope they do the right thing and adopt the GPL for it.

That sinking feeling... by RISCy+Business · 1999-08-09 21:22 · Score: 1

Well, now it's going to happen. *sigh*

Thousands of people who shouldn't even be allowed near a computer, much less anything resembling Linux, will begin flocking to Linux. RedHat will probably snag and pervert LIZARD for their own uses. Kiddies who barely know how to click a mouse will become 'eleet' as they install Linux with LIZARD because Linux is 'c00l, dood!'

Then watch all the distros switch to LIZARD, possibly even Debian, just for userbase. Why the hell do I want LIZARD? I don't want a simple install. I want a powerful, flexible install. LIZARD would only serve to make installation more of a hassle. Debian's already two CDs, watch it become 4 if LIZARD is used. I'll have more migraines in the internal network than ever before because LIZARD's so damned easy to use.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not an elitist. But I see absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to continue using Linux if it's going to stop being what it is, and try to be a desktop. I have no use for desktop operating system with install programs whose size rival that of a Microsoft install program.

-RISCy Business | Rabid System Administrator and BOFH

--
your company here.
shelby != ford

Re:That sinking feeling... by bugg · 1999-08-10 07:02 · Score: 1

Wasn't UNIX developed for portability? And UNIX was developed for servers, as in '69 basically everything that was running an OS in bell labs could be seen as a server, with dumb terminals connected throughout their buildings. my 2/100th of a dollar

--
-bugg
Re:That sinking feeling... by Suydam · 1999-08-09 21:28 · Score: 1

But I see absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to continue using Linux if it's going to stop being what it is, and try to be a desktop. I have no use for desktop operating system with install programs whose size rival that of a Microsoft install program.

Stop Pouting
Do you honestly think that all of a sudden Linux is going to require a GUI (which is what you seem to be worried about). Linux is a server OS....soon it might be a server OS AND a desktop OS, but it's not going to magically stop working as a server OS.
If you don't want Lizard, don't use is. Debian will continue to offer a text-only installer I'm sure....and if you have to, go back to Slakware or something.
Lament things worth lamenting....and cut out the "end of the world" speeches...it does nothing but feed the media's belief that Linux is susecptible to fragmentation.

--

Werd.

'Tho license issues remain, this is good news... by CodeShark · 1999-08-09 21:23 · Score: 2

I think all of the /. community wishes that people would just stick with the GPL (and LGPL), because that's what got us this far in the first place, however, (IMHO) this press release is still good news. Here's my logic:

One of the reasons Win 3.1X became useful was that it was fairly simple to install, especially compared to the later (bloated) Win9x and WinNT installs.
Another step towards Win 3.1.x stability was when they finally were able to communicate with Novell Network file servers (although it took stealing code from Novell to do it, (AFAICT) the main reason W4WkGrp and WinNT's network code stabilized as early as it did).
Easy install and "network access" (which was already there, just not NKFS)== the perception by average users that they can migrate to this "new" OS without being a tech guru or the danger of being left with an expensive paperweight until a highly paid tech guru fixes the mess.
Finally, assuming that Caldera is intelligent enough to release the code under any sort of acceptable "Open Source License", the concepts inside the code can be understood, improved, etc., and spread to the wider Linux community -- which makes it immune to single company subversion in my book.

Comments?

--
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...

Re:The GPL is not QPL Compatible! by Tenareth · 1999-08-10 00:37 · Score: 1

While some of your points are valid, it still doesn't mean the GPL should change. The GPL gives you the option to protect your product + source, while the others generally don't. If you are into developing software for the public good, the GPL is the best license, since it will continue to evolve and stay open. If you are out to write free-software, and don't care what happens to it, BSD and the like are fine. There is no real need for licenses to change, however you just need to be aware of certain incompatibilities.

-- Keith Moore

--
This sig is the express property of someone.

The Linux Community by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 00:38 · Score: 0

You've made some good points, but I'm not sure that being fully "accepted into the Linux community" is really the goal.

In fact, if slashdot posters are representative of "The Linux Community", then I don't know that I want to be a part of it.

A company spends money and time developing a piece of software. They release the source code to it. This is STILL considered a questionable business decision outside of our little world of open source software.

Result? A whole lot of people on slashdot say "Big deal. It's not GPL." Of course, many of those people are already using tools which are not GPL'd (Apache, Perl, X, BSD-licensed code). I'm sure some of them even posted their opinions using pre-NPL versions of Netscape.

If I was the person at Caldera who championed this decision, I would feel pretty burned. My bosses will question my judgement for giving away intellectual property. My contribution to the community is snubbed by the community.

What's Wrong with Apple Public Source License by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 00:46 · Score: 0

Apple has revised the APSL once in response to criticism. If you have specific criticism voice it, share it with Apple and watch the license get reved again.

Re:Hate to break the news to you... by Arandir · 1999-08-10 00:46 · Score: 2

Here, let me burst your bubble...

Linux does not have any core principles, focus or design. It's just an itch getting scratched.

Pop!

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:Redhat Not 100% GPL by Arandir · 1999-08-10 01:08 · Score: 2

Redhat is not 100% GPL. Hell, it's not even 100% opensource, let alone free.

My copy of Redhat 6.0 from Cheapbytes contains Netscape Communicator (non-free), Qt (non-GPL) and Xv (shareware), amongst others.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:The GPL is not QPL Compatible! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 07:14 · Score: 0

> Instead, the GPL should be the one bending a little and specifically allowing linking to other
> licenses.

That's what the LGPL is for.

Isn't RedHat promising a new proprietary installer by esnible · 1999-08-10 01:34 · Score: 1

Caldera is open-sourcing their installer at the same time that RedHat is making a new proprietary installer.

( "Red Hat, meanwhile, is developing its own installation program that it will not offer to the community" -- PC Week online http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/linux/news/0,6 423,2310504,00.html )

I hope that RedHat and other makers of proprietary installers are not tempted use the proprietary/secret/NDA probing algorithms that hardware manufacturers offer them and instead insist on open hardware specifications.

Re:Isn't RedHat promising a new proprietary instal by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 07:18 · Score: 0

Hmm.. interesting rumor but I doubt it. Why would RedHat want to prevent people from fixing their bugs for free by not releasing the source to the installer? :)

So this is supposed to be exciting? by ghjm · 1999-08-10 08:02 · Score: 1

I've never used OpenLinux, but I work in a Novell shop, and I was quite excited by the NetWare port that Caldera released for Linux. I was even prepared to spend good money on it. Unfortunately, they released it as binary only, it required their customized 2.0.35 kernel with STREAMS support, and they never did one lick of work to support it. Fortunately, I noticed this before I put down any actual cash.

But at Linux Expo in Raleigh, when I made my concerns known to their sales reps, they told me to wait a couple months for some really exciting announcements that would change my mind about Caldera.

I assume this is it. Yawn.

-Graham

Re:Caldera Rocks by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 08:51 · Score: 0

Uh, yeh this is quite probably true. Of course, doesn't having a proprietary licenced install program prevent you from freely copying round the distribution?

ie with most of the distributions available ATM, you can buy it, and then freely copy it to as many people as you like (excluding, of course, any proprietary software that's on the CD). However, if the installer software is proprietary, then you can't copy the distribution it in this fashion, because you can't copy the installer (even if you can quite freely copy everything else), and it's pretty hard to use a distribution without an installer.

Personally, I'm not that thrilled with spending arount AUS $100 on a linux distribution, when I can spend AUS $40 or $50 on the Developers Resource that contains 4 different ones to choose from, just minus the proprietary bits. (of course, this is a home users POV, not a Sys Admin's ... at least not yet :) )

Anyway, my point is that while "most people who just use Caldera" couldn't care less, doesn't this effect (or at least add to) these people who just use Caldera, since it should make access to the distribution easier?

Stop ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:26 · Score: 0

None of the smaller "open source" licenses have been tried in court either. A new license certainly hasn't. Lawyers have looked over the GPL, and said it was good.

Other distros? by abischof · 1999-08-09 21:27 · Score: 1

Have any other distros announced intentions to use Lizard, or even consider it? And, how similar is Lizard to Stormix's installer? Is that going to be freely released too, btw?

On a side note, I have a gripe about OpenLinux... When I installed it, it neither modified my MBR, nor offered to create a boot disk :(. So, as soon as I rebooted, I was "locked out" of Linux. I dunno if it made a difference, but I had planned to dual boot with NT (nt4 sp5 was already installed when I installed OpenLinux).. Has this happened to anyone else with OpenLinux?

Alex Bischoff
---

--

Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire

Re:Other distros? by Suydam · 1999-08-09 21:30 · Score: 1

Yep. Caldera broke my Lilo....and I even went as far as to manually edit my lilo.conf (however, I was re-installing from scratch, so I didn't have a "proven to work" backup of a lilo.conf file) and re-run lilo. Still wouldn't re-boot....i was locked out as well (thank good ness for old slakware boot disks lying at the bottom of my drawer). :)

--

Werd.

Coupla questions by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:29 · Score: 0

This uses the frame buffer to generate the GUI instead of X, right? I guess it uses Qt widgets? Could it easily be cloned to use GTK widgets? Or is Qt/GTK only within the scope of X? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have the auto detection for the mouse BEFORE* a screen of radio buttons to select language? Or is the left button on every mouse the same? (*having it first would obviously neccesitate a multi-lingual mouse detect screen)

It does by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:30 · Score: 0

Yes. YaST is proprietary, despite posts from SuSE employees at yahoo e-mail addresses to the contrary. Right now, the SuSE license prevents things like $2 clone CDs, etc. SuSE employees have privately made claims that SuSE eventually hopes to release YaST under some free license, but we'll see what happens. The only two completely free distributions that I know of are Red Hat and Debian. Some of the smaller ones as well.

Coupla questions by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:31 · Score: 0

This uses the frame buffer to generate the GUI instead of X, right?

I guess it uses Qt widgets? Could it easily be cloned to use GTK widgets? Or is Qt/GTK only within the scope of X?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have the auto detection for the mouse BEFORE* a screen of radio buttons to select language? Or is the left button on every mouse the same?

(*having it first would obviously neccesitate a multi-lingual mouse detect screen)

Lizard is an excellent install program by ult|ma · 1999-08-10 09:08 · Score: 1

I think Caldera OpenLinux is underrated. I was extremely impressed by LIZARD, its robust GUI-based install program. I personally think it destroys Redhat's, Suse's, and Debian's installer. I would have used it instead of Redhat if it wasn't for the pain in the ass of getting certain programs to compile that needed particular libraries. Redhat is much more standard and supported than Openlinux unfortunately.

Putting LIZARD under the GPL, or even a less appealing license is awesome. Caldera is doing the linux community a favor. However, they are not obligated to release any of their code under the GPL. That is not what Linux/OSS is about. Its about choice. Let Caldera do what they want, and smile about LIZARD, don't whine!

PS: Name one other installer for linux that is not only GUI, but you can configure your system while the packages are installed, and play tetris if you finish early!!

--
ul|tma -At least we all use linux-

Re:Lizard is an excellent install program by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 09:36 · Score: 0

On the other hand, name any major Linux distribution besides Caldera whose installer doesn't work 90% of the time.

Lizard makes okay eye-candy, but it sucks as an installer because its so broken. I've had it do everything from just flat-out fail to install (ooh, that tricky machine with *two* cd-roms. I better play it safe and not recognize either) to crash half-way through install to format partitions it shouldn't have to.... The only time I've gotten Caldera 2.2 to install correctly, I booted off of my homemade Linux floppy and used mke2fs, mkswap, tar, and rpm on it to install the entire fscking thing by hand. Believe me, it really wasn't worth the effort. I honestly can't think of a more disappointing Linux distribution than Caldera 2.2. It's *all* hype, no substance.

LinuxPPC's installer has always been 100% open by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-10 12:03 · Score: 0

LinuxPPC's graphical installer, which has been rapidly improving since the first version that shipped with R5, has always been available under the GPL. It's 100% free. Before you flame it: have you tried the 2.x series xli? It's MUCH better than the 1.x that shipped on the original R5 discs. Much much better. The 2.4 series has an all-new code base, and the next iteration is right around the corner. Try it! Better yet, the LinuxPPC xli runs in Linux. Does Caldera's? signed, too lazay to log in, and, a linuxppc user.

DiskDruid partitioner not free? by Possum+Man · 1999-08-10 19:11 · Score: 1

What!? Why not? Disk druid is free software (as in free beer). I've used it on my Cheapbytes Red Hat clone distrobution. What on earth is Red Hat's motive for not making the source available?

GPL by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:32 · Score: 0

If it ain't GPL, public domain, or a BSD-style license, I really don't care. I don't use Qt, or any of the software under the dozen or so other almost-free licenses ESR gleefully certified as "Open Source."

Re:'Tho license issues remain, this is good news.. by Ray+Dassen · 1999-08-09 21:36 · Score: 2

I think all of the /. community wishes that people would just stick with the GPL (and LGPL), because that's what got us this far in the first place

In this case, GPL isn't an option, as the GPL and the QPL interact badly. GPL with an exception clause to remove that bad interaction would work (but would of course itself not be compatible with pure GPLed code).

Also, I'm sure that there are BSDers in the /. community who will point out that we got this far also in part due to non-(L)GPLed free software.

The GPL and LGPL are good licenses in many circumstances, but they are not the license panacea (no license is).

Caldera Rocks by Anonymous Coward · 1999-08-09 21:36 · Score: 0

Its nice that they released the source to Lizard but honestly I couldn't care less, and most people who just use Caldera knowing that the base of the system is GPLed, including COAS, couldn't care less either. People who are actually using this software (aside from Sys Admins like me) don't spend their time on Slashdot whining like babies. Caldera is simply better than RedHat. Core dumping Gnome has only tarnished the image of a stable Linux. The horror that is E config mixed with Gnome config also is a mark against Linux on the desktop.

Damn hype! by abamfici · 1999-08-09 21:38 · Score: 1

I went to the page, the source for lizard won't even be available until Sept. 3rd. :( By then who knows what'll of happened and how many times they've decided to change the way it'll be released (if at all still).

~Kevin
:)

Slashdot Mirror

Caldera Releasing Lizard Source

153 comments