As I understand it, the microkernel advantage is supposed to be that almost your whole system is running as user-level processes. There has to be an inner kernel running as kernel-level, but it is stripped down and basically just schedules tasks. Everything like disk I/O, network, etc. is handled in user space.
So, if you need to debug your network stack, you don't need some special kernel debugger, you can just use gdb. And if you make a mistake in the network stack, it should have limited ability to lock up your whole system, unlike a monolithic kernel (such as Linux) where any error in kernel code potentially could take down the whole kernel.
Yes, the monolithic kernel is simpler: you don't need to build a message to the network subsystem, send it via the message queue, and so on; instead you just make a system call, and you are done. And in fact I believe this simplicity is what made Linus choose the monolithic kernel, despite all the good PR attached to microkernels.
Note that Windows NT started out as a microkernel-ish design, but the overhead of all the message passing led the NT guys to integrate several large chunks of the system (such as video) into a monolithic kernel. Thus a bad video card driver can take down a Windows server, and you cannot run a Windows server completely headless as you can a Linux server.
Linux is now good enough that banks use it to keep money, while the Hurd is still alpha code. Which is why, despite not knowing much about all this, I suspect Linus chose correctly.
Linus took Minix and evolved it to a state where Linux is today.
No. Linus used Minix as the OS for his computer, and used it to run his text editor and compiler and so on to build Linux.
No doubt he read the Minix book. But he didn't "evolve" Minix -- he did something else, on his own.
Then legions of coders around the world used the Internet to contribute improvements to Linux, and Linus managed the whole project. He has really shined as a manager and as a system architect, even more than as a coder.
if as many man-hours were spent improving Minix as were spent improving Linux, who is to say which would be the best today.
I have always heard that microkernel is supposed to make things better. The system is easier to get right, easier to debug. Sure it runs a bit slower with the overhead, but it will be rock solid stable and secure.
What makes me wonder about all this good PR is that the Hurd existed as a project before Linux, and it's still alpha code. Why? And why is the Hurd only available for 32-bit x86? Is the hype surrounding microkernel false, or was there some other factor that has slowed down the Hurd despite its microkernel superiority? (And if so, what is that other factor -- human factors among the the Hurd development leads perhaps?)
Note that I am not implying anything with these questions; they are honest questions from someone who doesn't know, and wonders.
I say support the MFS project, diversity is better than stagnation.
If by "support" you mean "don't spend any time criticising and complaining", I'm right there with you. I'll even go so far as to say "Minix from Scratch guys: good luck, have fun!" But I'm not going to spend any of my own time working on this project.
And I do wonder why they chose to work on Minix instead of the Hurd.
If you liked 2600 Star Raiders, you will love the real thing. The 2600 version was drastically simplified compared to the real one. (The Activision game Star Master was a better clone of Star Raiders than the official Atari game, but still not as good as the original.)
The 5200 was a weird thing, and it should never have been made. It was basically an Atari 800 series computer, bastardized into a console game. It could run any game made for the Atari 400/800, except for the fact that Atari cynically changed just enough stuff to make the 5200 incompatible. And the joysticks on the 5200 sucked.
Backwards compatibility turned out to be important, so they came out with a 2600 compatibility module, which was basically a complete 2600 that happened to plug in to the catridge slot on a 5200.
By the way, the Atari 400/800 computers had a great game called Star Raiders. The 5200 had a port of that, but thanks to the sucky joysticks it's not as fun as on the Atari 400/800. You can probably find an Atari 400 or 800 on eBay, or an emulator that can run Star Raiders, if you look.
All versions of MS Notepad until Windows 2000 sucked: you couldn't hit Ctrl+S to save, and the 9x versions couldn't edit a file bigger than 32KB (although they would hand off to WordPad, although WordPad was a bit slow).
Win2K and WinXP versions of Notepad have the shortcut keys, and can edit files of decent size, so that particular annoyance has been smoothed over.
My favorite Notepad clone has a cool feature: a toolbar button that lets you toggle between a fixed-width font and a proportional font. By default I prefer to read text files in proportional font (Times New Roman or similar) but if you need to look at "ASCII art" or a document that lines up by columns, you can toggle it into a fixed width font. I want this feature in GEdit, and for that matter in Evolution and anywhere else I might be reading a plain text document.
But if you use a gas heater to heat your home, and if electricity is more expensive than the gas for the heater, you would still come out ahead to make your computer more efficient.
Linux distros come packed with lots of programs for you to run. They have a large disk footprint.
XP, on the other hand, not only has a large disk footprint, but runs slowly unless you have more than 256 MB of RAM in your system. XP is bloated in the ways I care about.
Linux distros run much faster than XP on many computers.
The best, most rigorous listening test in the world results in the conclusion that the results are within the margin of error.
So, it would be fair to say then, that it is arguable whether AAC is really better than Ogg?
The tie-breaker is the fact that AAC is available and supported, while OGG is not.
That's funny, Ogg seems to be available for every computer platform I care about. There are many portable music players that don't support it, but there are a few now that do. My PDA plays Ogg files just fine, too.
It's interesting that you seem to interpret "AAC meets my needs better" as "AAC is better". AAC doesn't meet my needs better than Ogg, so for me Ogg is better.
Microsoft loves to make money. They would love to be in a situation where you buy a product from them, and then you just keep sending them money on a nice, predictable basis.
Antivirus software is perfect from that point of view. I'm actually kind of surprised it took them this long to do it. I suspect they just didn't want to annoy Symantec and the other companies.
Antivirus software is one of the few products where I think paying an annual fee really makes sense. You need constant, continuous updates to make sure that your protection is good, so you feel like you are getting something for your money.
Despite the above, the free software community has actually shown that it can provide effective antivirus software for free. ClamAV was originally designed to be a server-side antivirus solution only, but there is a Windows version available now (file scanning only, it doesn't yet intercept downloads and scan them automatically). ClamAV works and it has a good track record of getting updates quickly to dectect new viruses.
I run Debian GNU/Linux on my server and on my desktops, and I'm not too worried about viruses and worms. But I do have ClamAV running on my mail server, and it intercepts dozens of viruses per month. I have not seen any email containing a virus or worm ever get past it.
Norton Antivirus, for one, already works as you describe. It puts tentacles through the system, and hooks every file access and Internet download to scan them on-the-fly.
And it is a point of failure. If Norton Antivirus dies on you, it can take down your OS in unpleasant ways.
Microsoft has a poor track record with security, but an excellent one with providing cool features. Having hooks in the OS that let you scan everything as it goes by is a cool feature.
Anyway, if Symantec's antivirus solution can already do this, I'm not convinced that antivirus really needs to be integrated into the OS.
Just because some guy calls Debian the "lunatic fringe" doesn't mean I agree. Debian is really hard-core about licenses, and that's a good thing, because it means I don't have to be. I know I will always be able to give away Gnoppix CDs legally, because the Debian guys are so careful.
I hear good things about Gentoo, but I've been so happy with Debian I haven't really taken the time to look into it. If it's working for you, that's cool.
Are you actually stupid, or just pretending to be to troll me better? I wrote "They can't change the deal retroactively", and you want to know whether I mean they can change the deal retroactively?
Their MP3 encoder is still available for free to anybody who wants it, via QuickTime.
Are you actually this clueless, or just pretending to be to troll me better? Apple cut a deal that lets them distribute as part of their software, and users don't have to pay for many purposes. Frauhofer still owns the patent, and still charges under some circumstances. For example: set up a web site that sells music, and if you make any decent money at all, you will have to pay additional money straight to Frauhofer for use of their patent. I know that MPEG4 also has license provisions that kick in when you make enough money. Not sure about Sorenson.
Of course you could use Ogg, and pay nothing to anyone, but I've heard that only the lunatic fringe does that.
"troll" does not mean "person who disagrees with you."
So, you aren't just saying all these things to watch people waste their time by responding to you? You really are this rude and abrasive?
Okay, you aren't a rude troll. You're just rude. My mistake.
Actually, they are close enough that this is arguable. In any event, Ogg passes the "Good Enough" test. So does AAC, of course.
I don't know about this new thing, but I find it hard to believe that it's as good as MPEG-4 at high bit rates or Sorenson at low bit rates.
It's my understanding that Theora isn't as good as MPEG4 at equivalent bit rates. Not sure about Sorenson. Theora should actually be better than MPEG2, and for many applications MPEG2 passes the "Good Enough" test.
Of course, over time, as people come up with clever tricks, the encoders get better. It happened with MPEG and MPEG2, and Theora still has plenty of room to improve.
But if Theora isn't suitable for your application, you can always license MPEG4 or Sorenson or something. I'm certainly not saying that Theora is the all-purpose answer to everything.
It's a pain in the ass to use a nonstandard codec, so why bother?
Actually, because I am a Debian user, it's more of a pain for me to use IP-encumbered tools. So why should I bother?
And I'm not asking you to use Theora. I'm just telling you that you shouldn't say abusive rude things about the folks who are interested in it.
Fraunhofer's own business plan keeps them from "getting too greedy."
Can you count on that? How do you know that pointy-haired idiots won't make dumb decisions? It would be dumb to pick several of your customers and sue them, and drive away all possible future customers, but SCO did that.
Besides, the very fact that you'd consider a company's pursuit of profit through licensing of patented technology to be "getting too greedy" makes me laugh at you derisively. Ha-ha.
Go back and read what I wrote. I haven't argued that patent holders shouldn't be allowed to charge royalties; I pointed out that if you don't use IP-encumbered formats, no one can force you to pay royalties.
There's absolutely no interpretation of patent law that would result in that interpretation.
Um... how about the ability of patent owners to decide under what terms, and for what fees, they license the patent? If you are using patented technology, you have to comply with the terms of your patent license, don't you?
They can't tell you "AND by the way you also owe us big royalties for last year." They can't change the deal retroactively. But as long as they own the patent, they could set a license fee and license terms that you would need to honor in the future, unless you have some sort of signed agreement with them that took precedence.
Frauhofer let everyone use MP3 for free for a few years, then changed the deal and started charging. Are you saying that could never happen again?
[free software distributions like Debian...] are irrelevant to any serious discussion. We're talking about the real world here, not the lunatic fringe.
You really are a rude troll. No doubt you are laughing at me for taking the time to talk to you. Well, I won't make that mistake anymore.
Yeah... except no. You've got the encoder. You've got the decoder. You're safe, I swear.
If all else were equal, why not use the tool that isn't patent-encumbered?
And... just as AMD forced Intel to stop charging too much for CPUs, Ogg keeps Frauhofer from getting too greedy with MP3. Even if not that many people use Ogg, it's still keeping us safe.
And... imagine someone puts together a whole collection of stuff on the web in a patent-encumbered format such as MP3. The patent owners can literally tell that person "we control the patent, so you have to pay us or take your site down." Free formats mean no one can tell you what to do with your own stuff.
No one is seriously suggesting that jackbooted thugs will kick in your door and erase your QuickTime files from your hard disk. But that doesn't mean that there is no benefit to a free format.
And finally, Linux distributions such as Debian, who are really careful about IP, are free to include all Ogg players, encoders, and utilities. They can't include IP-encumbered stuff. I love being able to burn and give away CDs (such as Gnoppix) that can do all sorts of cool stuff, but are still legal for me to give away. I'm sure you are comfortable with restricting yourself to whatever tools get approved by the owners of the various patents, or whatever tools you personally pay for, but there is no need to be rude to those of us who are interested in the freedom aspects of free software.
One of my favorite features of GNOME 2.6: in Nautilus, you now have the ability to wildcard-select files. Pull down Edit / Select Pattern, or just hit Ctrl+S, and type in a pattern such as "*.ogg". Wham, all matching files get selected; now you can visually inspect them and use Ctrl+click to de-select any you didn't actually want, or Ctrl+click to select any other files you also wanted.
I've wanted this for a long, long time.
It's not quite perfect: there is no way to use this, then use it again to add a different pattern to the current selections. It always wipes out the previous file selections.
It's cool, and it's a great example of a practical advantage of the GPL.
IBM will not release the RCU patent for BSD-licensed code, because they would lose the ability to charge for use of the patent. But they can give it away for GPL use, and the community can use it, and if a company wants to use it in proprietary applications then that company will still have to pay IBM. Meanwhile, Linux uses RCU to improve the SMP code, and IBM can take advantage of Linux to help sell IBM computers.
It looks like Netscape has been dropped from testing and unstable, and remains only in stable. I did a quick search of the debian-devel archives, and didn't find anything about when it was dropped or by whom.
You should look in/var/cache/apt/archives, and see if you still have the packages. Failing that, you can maybe install Netscape by hand in/usr/local or something.
Fair enough. When I wrote that, I thought Firefox 0.9 was already out. Dumb of me, since the article is "Release Candidates Out", not "0.9 Out".
And the situation is murkier because all the plugins and such need to be ported to the new plugin architecture on 0.9. So 0.9 might be delayed, and even after it comes out, I'll probably have it on hold, because I don't want to give up my plugins and they will no doubt take a few more days to all get ported and updated in Debian.
The important point stands: Debian is actually a good way to go if you like tracking cutting-edge software. You get things pretty quick and they work when you get them.
If you want things immediately, you need to compile them yourself, and perhaps one of the source-based distros might be for you. But for me it's Debian.
However, Linux is not the "best choice" on IBM mainframes. The performace figures clearly show that it isn't.
If you want major reliability, an IBM mainframe is tough to beat. And if you want your server to be *NIX, you will want Linux on that mainframe.
But this isn't my real area of expertise, and I know Sun has some really reliable boxes too (hot-swap the CPUs and RAM, etc.) which are no doubt much better performance/price than an IBM mainframe.
Debian has all the free browsers, including Firefox, and keeps them up to date.
The Debian "nonfree" packages still include Netscape 4.7, although in the future the Debian project may distance itself from both contrib and nonfree.
And while Debian's "stable" branch is legendary for being a bit behind the times, most people run "unstable" on their desktops, or at least "testing", and those are very up to date.
I'm running Debian unstable on my desktop and I expect to have Firefox 0.9 within a few days.
Smarter people are trying to make sure that IBM truly gives away enough stuff so they cannot become entirely evil, such as officially saying that open source is allowed to use their patented technology. So far IBM has not been stupid enough to do that, but there is hope...
I'm having trouble parsing your statement here.
IBM officially licensed the RCU patent to Linux for GPL use only. Is this an example of IBM giving away stuff so it cannot become entirely evil?
You said "So far IBM has not been stupid enough to do that..." What do you mean by "that" in this sentence?
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, the microkernel advantage is supposed to be that almost your whole system is running as user-level processes. There has to be an inner kernel running as kernel-level, but it is stripped down and basically just schedules tasks. Everything like disk I/O, network, etc. is handled in user space.
So, if you need to debug your network stack, you don't need some special kernel debugger, you can just use gdb. And if you make a mistake in the network stack, it should have limited ability to lock up your whole system, unlike a monolithic kernel (such as Linux) where any error in kernel code potentially could take down the whole kernel.
Yes, the monolithic kernel is simpler: you don't need to build a message to the network subsystem, send it via the message queue, and so on; instead you just make a system call, and you are done. And in fact I believe this simplicity is what made Linus choose the monolithic kernel, despite all the good PR attached to microkernels.
Note that Windows NT started out as a microkernel-ish design, but the overhead of all the message passing led the NT guys to integrate several large chunks of the system (such as video) into a monolithic kernel. Thus a bad video card driver can take down a Windows server, and you cannot run a Windows server completely headless as you can a Linux server.
Linux is now good enough that banks use it to keep money, while the Hurd is still alpha code. Which is why, despite not knowing much about all this, I suspect Linus chose correctly.
steveha
Linus took Minix and evolved it to a state where Linux is today.
No. Linus used Minix as the OS for his computer, and used it to run his text editor and compiler and so on to build Linux.
No doubt he read the Minix book. But he didn't "evolve" Minix -- he did something else, on his own.
Then legions of coders around the world used the Internet to contribute improvements to Linux, and Linus managed the whole project. He has really shined as a manager and as a system architect, even more than as a coder.
if as many man-hours were spent improving Minix as were spent improving Linux, who is to say which would be the best today.
I have always heard that microkernel is supposed to make things better. The system is easier to get right, easier to debug. Sure it runs a bit slower with the overhead, but it will be rock solid stable and secure.
What makes me wonder about all this good PR is that the Hurd existed as a project before Linux, and it's still alpha code. Why? And why is the Hurd only available for 32-bit x86? Is the hype surrounding microkernel false, or was there some other factor that has slowed down the Hurd despite its microkernel superiority? (And if so, what is that other factor -- human factors among the the Hurd development leads perhaps?)
Note that I am not implying anything with these questions; they are honest questions from someone who doesn't know, and wonders.
I say support the MFS project, diversity is better than stagnation.
If by "support" you mean "don't spend any time criticising and complaining", I'm right there with you. I'll even go so far as to say "Minix from Scratch guys: good luck, have fun!" But I'm not going to spend any of my own time working on this project.
And I do wonder why they chose to work on Minix instead of the Hurd.
steveha
If you liked 2600 Star Raiders, you will love the real thing. The 2600 version was drastically simplified compared to the real one. (The Activision game Star Master was a better clone of Star Raiders than the official Atari game, but still not as good as the original.)
steveha
The 5200 was a weird thing, and it should never have been made. It was basically an Atari 800 series computer, bastardized into a console game. It could run any game made for the Atari 400/800, except for the fact that Atari cynically changed just enough stuff to make the 5200 incompatible. And the joysticks on the 5200 sucked.
Backwards compatibility turned out to be important, so they came out with a 2600 compatibility module, which was basically a complete 2600 that happened to plug in to the catridge slot on a 5200.
By the way, the Atari 400/800 computers had a great game called Star Raiders. The 5200 had a port of that, but thanks to the sucky joysticks it's not as fun as on the Atari 400/800. You can probably find an Atari 400 or 800 on eBay, or an emulator that can run Star Raiders, if you look.
steveha
All versions of MS Notepad until Windows 2000 sucked: you couldn't hit Ctrl+S to save, and the 9x versions couldn't edit a file bigger than 32KB (although they would hand off to WordPad, although WordPad was a bit slow).
Win2K and WinXP versions of Notepad have the shortcut keys, and can edit files of decent size, so that particular annoyance has been smoothed over.
My favorite Notepad clone has a cool feature: a toolbar button that lets you toggle between a fixed-width font and a proportional font. By default I prefer to read text files in proportional font (Times New Roman or similar) but if you need to look at "ASCII art" or a document that lines up by columns, you can toggle it into a fixed width font. I want this feature in GEdit, and for that matter in Evolution and anywhere else I might be reading a plain text document.
steveha
No, Hotmail is owned by Microsoft. They have a Visual Basic to Take Over the World. Scheme is only used by people who talk with a LISP.
(define kidding 1)
steveha
But if you use a gas heater to heat your home, and if electricity is more expensive than the gas for the heater, you would still come out ahead to make your computer more efficient.
steveha
Linux distros come packed with lots of programs for you to run. They have a large disk footprint.
XP, on the other hand, not only has a large disk footprint, but runs slowly unless you have more than 256 MB of RAM in your system. XP is bloated in the ways I care about.
Linux distros run much faster than XP on many computers.
steveha
Whatever. Have a nice life.
steveha
I'm happy to hear about it! Thanks for your work on ClamAV.
steveha
The best, most rigorous listening test in the world results in the conclusion that the results are within the margin of error.
So, it would be fair to say then, that it is arguable whether AAC is really better than Ogg?
The tie-breaker is the fact that AAC is available and supported, while OGG is not.
That's funny, Ogg seems to be available for every computer platform I care about. There are many portable music players that don't support it, but there are a few now that do. My PDA plays Ogg files just fine, too.
It's interesting that you seem to interpret "AAC meets my needs better" as "AAC is better". AAC doesn't meet my needs better than Ogg, so for me Ogg is better.
steveha
Microsoft loves to make money. They would love to be in a situation where you buy a product from them, and then you just keep sending them money on a nice, predictable basis.
Antivirus software is perfect from that point of view. I'm actually kind of surprised it took them this long to do it. I suspect they just didn't want to annoy Symantec and the other companies.
Antivirus software is one of the few products where I think paying an annual fee really makes sense. You need constant, continuous updates to make sure that your protection is good, so you feel like you are getting something for your money.
Despite the above, the free software community has actually shown that it can provide effective antivirus software for free. ClamAV was originally designed to be a server-side antivirus solution only, but there is a Windows version available now (file scanning only, it doesn't yet intercept downloads and scan them automatically). ClamAV works and it has a good track record of getting updates quickly to dectect new viruses.
http://www.clamav.net/
I run Debian GNU/Linux on my server and on my desktops, and I'm not too worried about viruses and worms. But I do have ClamAV running on my mail server, and it intercepts dozens of viruses per month. I have not seen any email containing a virus or worm ever get past it.
steveha
Norton Antivirus, for one, already works as you describe. It puts tentacles through the system, and hooks every file access and Internet download to scan them on-the-fly.
And it is a point of failure. If Norton Antivirus dies on you, it can take down your OS in unpleasant ways.
Microsoft has a poor track record with security, but an excellent one with providing cool features. Having hooks in the OS that let you scan everything as it goes by is a cool feature.
Anyway, if Symantec's antivirus solution can already do this, I'm not convinced that antivirus really needs to be integrated into the OS.
steveha
Just because some guy calls Debian the "lunatic fringe" doesn't mean I agree. Debian is really hard-core about licenses, and that's a good thing, because it means I don't have to be. I know I will always be able to give away Gnoppix CDs legally, because the Debian guys are so careful.
I hear good things about Gentoo, but I've been so happy with Debian I haven't really taken the time to look into it. If it's working for you, that's cool.
Thanks for the kind words.
steveha
Retroactively?
Are you actually stupid, or just pretending to be to troll me better? I wrote "They can't change the deal retroactively", and you want to know whether I mean they can change the deal retroactively?
Their MP3 encoder is still available for free to anybody who wants it, via QuickTime.
Are you actually this clueless, or just pretending to be to troll me better? Apple cut a deal that lets them distribute as part of their software, and users don't have to pay for many purposes. Frauhofer still owns the patent, and still charges under some circumstances. For example: set up a web site that sells music, and if you make any decent money at all, you will have to pay additional money straight to Frauhofer for use of their patent. I know that MPEG4 also has license provisions that kick in when you make enough money. Not sure about Sorenson.
Of course you could use Ogg, and pay nothing to anyone, but I've heard that only the lunatic fringe does that.
"troll" does not mean "person who disagrees with you."
So, you aren't just saying all these things to watch people waste their time by responding to you? You really are this rude and abrasive?
Okay, you aren't a rude troll. You're just rude. My mistake.
steveha
OGG isn't as good as AAC.
Actually, they are close enough that this is arguable. In any event, Ogg passes the "Good Enough" test. So does AAC, of course.
I don't know about this new thing, but I find it hard to believe that it's as good as MPEG-4 at high bit rates or Sorenson at low bit rates.
It's my understanding that Theora isn't as good as MPEG4 at equivalent bit rates. Not sure about Sorenson. Theora should actually be better than MPEG2, and for many applications MPEG2 passes the "Good Enough" test.
Of course, over time, as people come up with clever tricks, the encoders get better. It happened with MPEG and MPEG2, and Theora still has plenty of room to improve.
But if Theora isn't suitable for your application, you can always license MPEG4 or Sorenson or something. I'm certainly not saying that Theora is the all-purpose answer to everything.
It's a pain in the ass to use a nonstandard codec, so why bother?
Actually, because I am a Debian user, it's more of a pain for me to use IP-encumbered tools. So why should I bother?
And I'm not asking you to use Theora. I'm just telling you that you shouldn't say abusive rude things about the folks who are interested in it.
Fraunhofer's own business plan keeps them from "getting too greedy."
Can you count on that? How do you know that pointy-haired idiots won't make dumb decisions? It would be dumb to pick several of your customers and sue them, and drive away all possible future customers, but SCO did that.
Besides, the very fact that you'd consider a company's pursuit of profit through licensing of patented technology to be "getting too greedy" makes me laugh at you derisively. Ha-ha.
Go back and read what I wrote. I haven't argued that patent holders shouldn't be allowed to charge royalties; I pointed out that if you don't use IP-encumbered formats, no one can force you to pay royalties.
There's absolutely no interpretation of patent law that would result in that interpretation.
Um... how about the ability of patent owners to decide under what terms, and for what fees, they license the patent? If you are using patented technology, you have to comply with the terms of your patent license, don't you?
They can't tell you "AND by the way you also owe us big royalties for last year." They can't change the deal retroactively. But as long as they own the patent, they could set a license fee and license terms that you would need to honor in the future, unless you have some sort of signed agreement with them that took precedence.
Frauhofer let everyone use MP3 for free for a few years, then changed the deal and started charging. Are you saying that could never happen again?
[free software distributions like Debian...] are irrelevant to any serious discussion. We're talking about the real world here, not the lunatic fringe.
You really are a rude troll. No doubt you are laughing at me for taking the time to talk to you. Well, I won't make that mistake anymore.
steveha
Yeah... except no. You've got the encoder. You've got the decoder. You're safe, I swear.
If all else were equal, why not use the tool that isn't patent-encumbered?
And... just as AMD forced Intel to stop charging too much for CPUs, Ogg keeps Frauhofer from getting too greedy with MP3. Even if not that many people use Ogg, it's still keeping us safe.
And... imagine someone puts together a whole collection of stuff on the web in a patent-encumbered format such as MP3. The patent owners can literally tell that person "we control the patent, so you have to pay us or take your site down." Free formats mean no one can tell you what to do with your own stuff.
No one is seriously suggesting that jackbooted thugs will kick in your door and erase your QuickTime files from your hard disk. But that doesn't mean that there is no benefit to a free format.
And finally, Linux distributions such as Debian, who are really careful about IP, are free to include all Ogg players, encoders, and utilities. They can't include IP-encumbered stuff. I love being able to burn and give away CDs (such as Gnoppix) that can do all sorts of cool stuff, but are still legal for me to give away. I'm sure you are comfortable with restricting yourself to whatever tools get approved by the owners of the various patents, or whatever tools you personally pay for, but there is no need to be rude to those of us who are interested in the freedom aspects of free software.
Fucking idiot.
Rude troll.
steveha
One of my favorite features of GNOME 2.6: in Nautilus, you now have the ability to wildcard-select files. Pull down Edit / Select Pattern, or just hit Ctrl+S, and type in a pattern such as "*.ogg". Wham, all matching files get selected; now you can visually inspect them and use Ctrl+click to de-select any you didn't actually want, or Ctrl+click to select any other files you also wanted.
I've wanted this for a long, long time.
It's not quite perfect: there is no way to use this, then use it again to add a different pattern to the current selections. It always wipes out the previous file selections.
steveha
It's cool, and it's a great example of a practical advantage of the GPL.
IBM will not release the RCU patent for BSD-licensed code, because they would lose the ability to charge for use of the patent. But they can give it away for GPL use, and the community can use it, and if a company wants to use it in proprietary applications then that company will still have to pay IBM. Meanwhile, Linux uses RCU to improve the SMP code, and IBM can take advantage of Linux to help sell IBM computers.
steveha
Here's what I found:
/var/cache/apt/archives, and see if you still have the packages. Failing that, you can maybe install Netscape by hand in /usr/local or something.
Debian package search for "netscape"
It looks like Netscape has been dropped from testing and unstable, and remains only in stable. I did a quick search of the debian-devel archives, and didn't find anything about when it was dropped or by whom.
You should look in
Good luck.
steveha
The Debian "nonfree" packages still include Netscape 4.7
Actually, I just checked and it's "contrib", not "nonfree". Sorry about that.
steveha
Fair enough. When I wrote that, I thought Firefox 0.9 was already out. Dumb of me, since the article is "Release Candidates Out", not "0.9 Out".
And the situation is murkier because all the plugins and such need to be ported to the new plugin architecture on 0.9. So 0.9 might be delayed, and even after it comes out, I'll probably have it on hold, because I don't want to give up my plugins and they will no doubt take a few more days to all get ported and updated in Debian.
The important point stands: Debian is actually a good way to go if you like tracking cutting-edge software. You get things pretty quick and they work when you get them.
If you want things immediately, you need to compile them yourself, and perhaps one of the source-based distros might be for you. But for me it's Debian.
steveha
However, Linux is not the "best choice" on IBM mainframes. The performace figures clearly show that it isn't.
If you want major reliability, an IBM mainframe is tough to beat. And if you want your server to be *NIX, you will want Linux on that mainframe.
But this isn't my real area of expertise, and I know Sun has some really reliable boxes too (hot-swap the CPUs and RAM, etc.) which are no doubt much better performance/price than an IBM mainframe.
steveha
I know it's a joke, but sheesh.
Debian has all the free browsers, including Firefox, and keeps them up to date.
The Debian "nonfree" packages still include Netscape 4.7, although in the future the Debian project may distance itself from both contrib and nonfree.
And while Debian's "stable" branch is legendary for being a bit behind the times, most people run "unstable" on their desktops, or at least "testing", and those are very up to date.
I'm running Debian unstable on my desktop and I expect to have Firefox 0.9 within a few days.
steveha
Smarter people are trying to make sure that IBM truly gives away enough stuff so they cannot become entirely evil, such as officially saying that open source is allowed to use their patented technology. So far IBM has not been stupid enough to do that, but there is hope...
I'm having trouble parsing your statement here.
IBM officially licensed the RCU patent to Linux for GPL use only. Is this an example of IBM giving away stuff so it cannot become entirely evil?
You said "So far IBM has not been stupid enough to do that..." What do you mean by "that" in this sentence?
steveha