Thanks IBM, you give us all faith that large mega-corps arent all complete bastards:)
Sincerely, this is a gesture that alot of us appreciate immensely, and one which Im sure all Linux users will appreciate later when it is all stabilised and integrated into the kernel
Hats off to IBM, a company that obviously has good people, good intentions and a clue;)
Everything you have said, while sounding ok on the surface, is in fact entirely incorrect...
a) Linux is a great OS, yes.... Unix is not a great open source design... so fucking what, its a great design. I think that's what counts???
b)There is tonnes of quality software on Linux. I believe that a lot of the alpha and beta stuff would give most commercial releases a run for its money!
However, some software is a little lacking (I use Enlightenment, and am starting to question its stability) but it is *explicitly* said that this stuff is alpha or pre-alpha. You dont have to use it, and in fact unless you can fix a lot of your own problems, you shouldnt be using it. That doesnt mean its bad software, its just *young* software
c)People hate Microsoft because of their shady business practises... However this is entirely irrelevant, and I dont think MS stuff being shit has a lot to do with Linux's growth... Its a good system, period. A lot of people will jump to Win2000 no doubt (it actually looks ok) and good luck to them. Personally I couldnt care less about MS
d) No I dont believe win2000 could come from an open source project. That does not discount the value of free and open software, or make linux any less an operating system. Again, entirely irrelevant... Come back in a year or 2 after 6 service packs and tell me again how great Win2000 is... I still wont care:)
e) Tieing up loose ends... I agree to a certain point, but I cant believe that kernel hacking is entirely fun, and yet look how far it has come. There *are* people willing to do the drudge work... there is a lot of pride at stake.
f) As for there always being 'one true technology', you certainly need to take a second look here! Microsoft's monopoly is not the rule, its the exception. Tapes, records, cds... yes, I still listen to all 3... 5.25, 3.5 floppies, a lot of people had both, and now its just jumped up a notch to 3.5/zip(orb, jazz whatever). I dont believe there being one OS running 90% of stuff is good, even if it was Linux. I am looking forward to a time when BeOS, Linux (and/or BSDs, hurd etc), Windows, and maybe even an offering from IBM will coexist, communicating via open protocols and standards... a pipe dream? I dont think so... If linux loses the race, I think it will be successful in one area - pushing open protocols and standards down the commercial companies throats...
g) Open source software will fail? How will it fail? Its not a company, and really, it is not attempting world domination (no matter how much Linus jokes).. sure, people will come in droves, try the install, get stuck and leave never to return... but does this affect my usage?
Think about things a little more.... if not, just go install Windows 2000 and enjoy yourself!
Sorry to ask such a lame (read the FAQ!) type question, but I am interested.
They are releasing 2.1 under the GPL. They say that it will continue to be under the GPL, even if they release a future version under a more restrictive license
Isnt that against the GPL? How can they release a future version under a proprietary license, when it would obviously be based on v2.1? Arent all changes to GPLed software under the GPL? Or are they trying to make us believe that they will do parallel development on the non-GPLed earlier version?
Taking two copies of source, and saying one is GPL and the other isnt just doesnt work. You arent GPLing the bits on the disk, but the *content* of the work.... I believe they risk breaking the GPL by this idea of releasing a future non-GPL version
Let's take a step back for a moment and look at their real concerns. They are afraid that people will copy music without paying for it, depriving artists and companies of their due. This is no different to software piracy.. I have always believed, and still maintain, that protecting something against piracy is a wasted effort.. why? Remember the c64? The most successful home computer of all time was also the centre of software piracy for many years. Did companies not make a fair wad of cash? Yes they did. I also believe that anyone who copies games, music or whatever on any scale whatsoever almost *certainly* would *not* buy the originals if piracy was not possible... I have 400 disks of c64 games, approx 2000 altogether... would I have bought 2000 games retail? never... did I buy retail games anyway? Yes, I still have boxed versions of Elite, sensi-tennis, Gunship etc... OK, now consider the PSX. Copy-protection scheme wasnt difficult to crack, and is a cheap and easy hardware mod... People are playing CDR copies of PSX games all over the world... Would they have bought them anyway? Nope, they probably wouldnt have bought a PSX in the first place... same reason why the c64 was so successful...piracy was widespread and games were easy to come by. Same with VHS movies. People copy them all the time... would they have bought them? Unless it was in the $5 second hand box at the local video store, I sincerely doubt it. People who want the manuals and glossy boxes (and in the case of CDs, the nice printed inserts with lyrics) will buy the originals.... people who dont care and wouldnt spend $30 on a cd will copy it... Copy protection doesnt make them buy the originals, they either crack the protection or dont bother (which is why the PSX is more successful than the N64...) Copy protection is a waste of time and resources...and saves *nothing* Think about it
a) Design our own codec (totally open ofcourse) b) Make some tools (encoders, decoders) c) make some server apps (casting the stuff) d) make a server app which will re-route any other stream you ask for thru itself, while converting to our new standard.. (only thing that needs to use proprietary codecs)
A prominent business man in Perth, Western Australia sued the TAB (horses, dogs) to reclaim his losses (amounted to millions) because they let him bet on credit.... There is a law forbidding this.... They would put him in his own little room with a TV, drinks etc, and he would have to cover his losses at the end of the day (I suppose)...
years and years ago.... Im still planning on making a website where you can build and order a cd made up of the linuxware of your choice... If and when I get it done, Ill let you know if I get any enraged phonecalls:) By the way, Im going to patent the idea of turning your computer on with, what I like to call, a *button*. But that wont effect Linux users as Ill have a clause where anyone can do it once a year for free;)
It doesnt matter if NT outperforms Linux by a factor of 10 to 1, Mindcraft's name is shit.
It doesnt matter how much they 'vindicate' themselves, or produce nice little graphs, their name is shit.
It doesnt matter if they were right the first time, and we have been completely unfair to them, their name is shit.
Its about time a bunch of M$ buddies felt what FUD is like. Their company name is shit, their reputation is shit, and fair or not, they will never vindicate themselves.
Such is life in a big FUD war. Get over it. Linux is slower than NT. Get over it. NT crashes 100x more than Linux. Get over it. I personally run *only* Linux, and even have a tattoo of Tux on my arm, and couldnt give a crap what Mindcraft or M$ have to say... I really couldnt care less. I dont care that MS is found to be a monopoly... it doesnt matter to me one bit....
Stop competing with M$, they are irrelevant. Stop worrying about Mindcraft tests, they are irrelevant and after the first round no-one will ever take them seriously again. Concentrate on what's important, developing free, open, stable and funky software. I dont care if it takes 10 years to get Linux good enough for the desktop. *STOP COMPETING* , its dangerous, and can only lead to crappy software. Take your time, make it stable, make it fast, and enjoy what you've created.
a) Microsoft's cash hoarde is a moot point... The software landscape has change forever with Open Source, and you cant buy Linux.. b) Microsoft *should* be prohibited from buying distribution channels and from entering into exclusive contracts with suppliers... c) The *most* important thing the government could and *should* do is make it illegal for Microsoft to use proprietary interfaces and protocols... This is the last barrier of entry for Open Source... Once all the protocols are known, even their money wouldnt save them...
Is this hardware really defective? To me (obviously Im not American) hardware is defective when it causes you some quantifiable loss.... and can be traced back to one of probably many bugs in every piece of hardware.
If this was the case, we could have sued Commodore because we could play samples thru the volume register on a 64... Technically, that was a bug....
Im glad I dont like in America (however, you still have your guns!!!)
I'm always a little wary of this sort of stuff. Faster processors *do not* always mean greater productivity or even speed. Coders will become even more slack as a result of this, Im afraid.
There is really something to be said for developing on a slow machine and spending a fair amount of time *optimising*... I hope the Linux kernal hackers dont get caught up in this and start bloating the kernal (ack!).
Anyone who has seen recent (1998-1999) Commodore 64 demo will know what I'm saying. You wouldn't believe what they do with a 1Mhz processor these days, and its all due to *optimising*...
Now, running well optimised code on a 1Ghz processor, well, thats something different:)
Exactly...people should read this stuff a little more carefully..
Take this as a win people, and nothing more... Why a win? Open Source is about the creation of software using the world's largest and weirdest dev environment - namely, thousands of people on the net...
I for one am proud that M$ have found that the Open Source tool are superior.. proves our point yet again.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks IBM, you give us all faith that large mega-corps arent all complete bastards :)
;)
Sincerely, this is a gesture that alot of us appreciate immensely, and one which Im sure all Linux users will appreciate later when it is all stabilised and integrated into the kernel
Hats off to IBM, a company that obviously has good people, good intentions and a clue
Open your eyes my friend
:)
Everything you have said, while sounding ok on the surface, is in fact entirely incorrect...
a) Linux is a great OS, yes.... Unix is not a great open source design... so fucking what, its a great design. I think that's what counts???
b)There is tonnes of quality software on Linux. I believe that a lot of the alpha and beta stuff would give most commercial releases a run for its money!
However, some software is a little lacking (I use Enlightenment, and am starting to question its stability) but it is *explicitly* said that this stuff is alpha or pre-alpha. You dont have to use it, and in fact unless you can fix a lot of your own problems, you shouldnt be using it. That doesnt mean its bad software, its just *young* software
c)People hate Microsoft because of their shady business practises... However this is entirely irrelevant, and I dont think MS stuff being shit has a lot to do with Linux's growth... Its a good system, period. A lot of people will jump to Win2000 no doubt (it actually looks ok) and good luck to them. Personally I couldnt care less about MS
d) No I dont believe win2000 could come from an open source project. That does not discount the value of free and open software, or make linux any less an operating system. Again, entirely irrelevant... Come back in a year or 2 after 6 service packs and tell me again how great Win2000 is... I still wont care
e) Tieing up loose ends... I agree to a certain point, but I cant believe that kernel hacking is entirely fun, and yet look how far it has come. There *are* people willing to do the drudge work... there is a lot of pride at stake.
f) As for there always being 'one true technology', you certainly need to take a second look here! Microsoft's monopoly is not the rule, its the exception. Tapes, records, cds... yes, I still listen to all 3... 5.25, 3.5 floppies, a lot of people had both, and now its just jumped up a notch to 3.5/zip(orb, jazz whatever). I dont believe there being one OS running 90% of stuff is good, even if it was Linux. I am looking forward to a time when BeOS, Linux (and/or BSDs, hurd etc), Windows, and maybe even an offering from IBM will coexist, communicating via open protocols and standards... a pipe dream? I dont think so... If linux loses the race, I think it will be successful in one area - pushing open protocols and standards down the commercial companies throats...
g) Open source software will fail? How will it fail? Its not a company, and really, it is not attempting world domination (no matter how much Linus jokes).. sure, people will come in droves, try the install, get stuck and leave never to return... but does this affect my usage?
Think about things a little more.... if not, just go install Windows 2000 and enjoy yourself!
To think, a BSOD could actually kill you!!! :)
Im sorry, your husband has caused a general protection fault... Press any key to shut him down
Wow!!! This is really....ZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
Sorry to ask such a lame (read the FAQ!) type question, but I am interested.
They are releasing 2.1 under the GPL. They say that it will continue to be under the GPL, even if they release a future version under a more restrictive license
Isnt that against the GPL? How can they release a future version under a proprietary license, when it would obviously be based on v2.1? Arent all changes to GPLed software under the GPL? Or are they trying to make us believe that they will do parallel development on the non-GPLed earlier version?
Taking two copies of source, and saying one is GPL and the other isnt just doesnt work. You arent GPLing the bits on the disk, but the *content* of the work.... I believe they risk breaking the GPL by this idea of releasing a future non-GPL version
Any feedback?
Let's take a step back for a moment and look at their real concerns. They are afraid that people will copy music without paying for it, depriving artists and companies of their due. This is no different to software piracy.. I have always believed, and still maintain, that protecting something against piracy is a wasted effort.. why? Remember the c64? The most successful home computer of all time was also the centre of software piracy for many years. Did companies not make a fair wad of cash? Yes they did. I also believe that anyone who copies games, music or whatever on any scale whatsoever almost *certainly* would *not* buy the originals if piracy was not possible... I have 400 disks of c64 games, approx 2000 altogether... would I have bought 2000 games retail? never... did I buy retail games anyway? Yes, I still have boxed versions of Elite, sensi-tennis, Gunship etc... OK, now consider the PSX. Copy-protection scheme wasnt difficult to crack, and is a cheap and easy hardware mod... People are playing CDR copies of PSX games all over the world... Would they have bought them anyway? Nope, they probably wouldnt have bought a PSX in the first place... same reason why the c64 was so successful...piracy was widespread and games were easy to come by. Same with VHS movies. People copy them all the time... would they have bought them? Unless it was in the $5 second hand box at the local video store, I sincerely doubt it. People who want the manuals and glossy boxes (and in the case of CDs, the nice printed inserts with lyrics) will buy the originals.... people who dont care and wouldnt spend $30 on a cd will copy it... Copy protection doesnt make them buy the originals, they either crack the protection or dont bother (which is why the PSX is more successful than the N64...) Copy protection is a waste of time and resources...and saves *nothing* Think about it
Billy's windows machine in the boardroom will only boot in safe mode, and he has to go re-install....
...what the patent, who they hold over the barrel or how much money they make at the expense of others...
If they find a cure for crohn's disease from this, Ill kiss all of their collective asses
The anti-XMMS-website-falling-on-its-ass-thanks-to-Sla shdot plugin...
Why dont we just
a) Design our own codec (totally open ofcourse)
b) Make some tools (encoders, decoders)
c) make some server apps (casting the stuff)
d) make a server app which will re-route any other stream you ask for thru itself, while converting to our new standard.. (only thing that needs to use proprietary codecs)
and viola! end of these damn codec probs
Im game....
I wanna know, who owns the tech for the c64/128? Now *that* would be useful! :)
Stop wasting my bandwidth! command line/lynx/ircII foreva!! :)
A prominent business man in Perth, Western Australia sued the TAB (horses, dogs) to reclaim his losses (amounted to millions) because they let him bet on credit.... There is a law forbidding this.... They would put him in his own little room with a TV, drinks etc, and he would have to cover his losses at the end of the day (I suppose)...
I think he won......
Who is working to port Linux to these things?
ldy #$00 lda ($fa),y eor #$ff sta ($fc),y problem sorted :)
years and years ago.... Im still planning on making a website where you can build and order a cd made up of the linuxware of your choice... If and when I get it done, Ill let you know if I get any enraged phonecalls :) By the way, Im going to patent the idea of turning your computer on with, what I like to call, a *button*. But that wont effect Linux users as Ill have a clause where anyone can do it once a year for free ;)
their name is shit...
It doesnt matter if NT outperforms Linux by a factor of 10 to 1, Mindcraft's name is shit.
It doesnt matter how much they 'vindicate' themselves, or produce nice little graphs, their name is shit.
It doesnt matter if they were right the first time, and we have been completely unfair to them, their name is shit.
Its about time a bunch of M$ buddies felt what FUD is like. Their company name is shit, their reputation is shit, and fair or not, they will never vindicate themselves.
Such is life in a big FUD war. Get over it. Linux is slower than NT. Get over it. NT crashes 100x more than Linux. Get over it. I personally run *only* Linux, and even have a tattoo of Tux on my arm, and couldnt give a crap what Mindcraft or M$ have to say... I really couldnt care less. I dont care that MS is found to be a monopoly... it doesnt matter to me one bit....
Stop competing with M$, they are irrelevant. Stop worrying about Mindcraft tests, they are irrelevant and after the first round no-one will ever take them seriously again. Concentrate on what's important, developing free, open, stable and funky software. I dont care if it takes 10 years to get Linux good enough for the desktop. *STOP COMPETING* , its dangerous, and can only lead to crappy software. Take your time, make it stable, make it fast, and enjoy what you've created.
Bugger M$ and bugger Mindcraft
Pournelle is a complete dickhead who wouldnt know logic if it came up and bit him on the ass....
Just a few points:
a) Microsoft's cash hoarde is a moot point... The software landscape has change forever with Open Source, and you cant buy Linux..
b) Microsoft *should* be prohibited from buying distribution channels and from entering into exclusive contracts with suppliers...
c) The *most* important thing the government could and *should* do is make it illegal for Microsoft to use proprietary interfaces and protocols... This is the last barrier of entry for Open Source... Once all the protocols are known, even their money wouldnt save them...
Is this hardware really defective? To me (obviously Im not American) hardware is defective when it causes you some quantifiable loss.... and can be traced back to one of probably many bugs in every piece of hardware.
If this was the case, we could have sued Commodore because we could play samples thru the volume register on a 64... Technically, that was a bug....
Im glad I dont like in America (however, you still have your guns!!!)
I'm always a little wary of this sort of stuff. Faster processors *do not* always mean greater productivity or even speed. Coders will become even more slack as a result of this, Im afraid.
:)
There is really something to be said for developing on a slow machine and spending a fair amount of time *optimising*... I hope the Linux kernal hackers dont get caught up in this and start bloating the kernal (ack!).
Anyone who has seen recent (1998-1999) Commodore 64 demo will know what I'm saying. You wouldn't believe what they do with a 1Mhz processor these days, and its all due to *optimising*...
Now, running well optimised code on a 1Ghz processor, well, thats something different
Exactly...people should read this stuff a little more carefully..
Take this as a win people, and nothing more... Why a win? Open Source is about the creation of software using the world's largest and weirdest dev environment - namely, thousands of people on the net...
I for one am proud that M$ have found that the Open Source tool are superior.. proves our point yet again.