SCO is claiming that the SystemV contract specifies that they retain control over everything developed for SysV Unix
But if you follow what's going on (I read GROKLAW regularly) you see that SCO is just plain in flail mode. IBM's version of the SysV contract has an appendix that says "but anything IBM invents, IBM still owns." Whoops, there goes SCO's whole claim to JFS and just about everything else.
Meanwhile, SCO has tried to admit very vague claims, and the judge didn't permit it. So SCO has to produce specific claims. SCO also tried to demand a huge pile of stuff from IBM, and the judge didn't go for that, so SCO can't go fishing, looking for something of which to accuse IBM.
This is IBM. They are careful with contract stuff and IP stuff. SCO might manage to find some little point that IBM didn't handle 100% perfectly, but IBM will absolutely destroy SCO's main claims, and IBM's counter-suit against SCO will be enough to destroy SCO itself.
SCO has done a bad enough job in the court so far that it may not take 5 to 10 years before this gets decided in IBM's favor. The biggest issues might get thrown out completely before the case even goes to court! If that happens, the SCO stock price will plummet.
Okay, imagine that there's no copyright. [...] What's Microsoft?
Irrelevant to whether lack of copyright is equal to the GPL.
P.S. Microsoft would be hurt, but they would survive. They would no longer just sell software, they would make you actually sign a contract before you get the software. And if you say "now imagine both copyright and contract law vanishing", I won't bother to reply.
Note that Red Hat is making money supporting Linux. Microsoft could do something similar, and since they would never release the source code, they would have no competition in the support business for Windows.
Also note that without copyright, they could make a "MS Linux" by taking Linux source code, changing some internals to make it incompatible, and selling it. No one else could support that, either. (You may say that wise people won't buy it; that's true. I'm just pointing out that lack of copyright law would make it possible.)
I just noticed the Hush ATX system. It seems to be passively cooled, yet it has a Pentium 4. Presumably they could also build one with an AthlonXP but they don't seem to have one yet.
won't a P4 system give me better "speed per dollar"?
Actually, an AthlonXP will give the best speed per dollar, since it gets more done in a clock cycle. It's actually pretty close between Athlon and Pentium, but if you add in the cost of the electricity over the life of the computer, the AthlonXP will win.
What I would care about more is a silent and small (think book sized) system. When I say _silent_ (not just almost silent), I mean that it won't need a CPU fan, no power source fan and that it would be based around a 1GB compact flash card.
I have to quibble about the CompactFlash card. It really isn't a very good way to set up your computer: an OS that expects a hard drive will wear out your CompactFlash quickly. If you are willing to run Linux, and you don't put/var or/tmp on the CompactFlash, this could work. (Make/usr and/etc read-only, and maybe make a CRAMFS for/home or something.) But you would be best off just accepting a hard disk; the hard disk is not the source of very much noise. Get one with fluid bearings. For complete silence, just do a net boot, and run your system purely out of RAM.
Note that you really don't need a 1 Gbit ethernet connection; 100 Mbit will be just fine for a net boot config. I used to use UNIX workstations that had NFS mounted directories over 10 Mbit Ethernet and I rarely noticed any speed difference from the local directories. Not that many years ago, a 10 MB/sec drive interface was considered "fast", and 100 Mbit/sec is about as fast as that. I think you will notice a busy CPU more than you will notice the network speed.
As for the rest of what you want, it is possible with a Via C3 today. It will be possible with a Crusoe chip when the Mini-ITX Crusoe boards ship.
I have a serious case of techno-lust for a Hush computer. Look how well it meets your specs, right down to a fanless power supply (it has a transformer "brick" in the power cord). Note that they offer Seagate drives with fluid bearings (quiet) and even 2.5" laptop drives (should be even quieter, but also slower).
Directron doesn't carry it, but they might someday. If you live in the USA, let Directron know you want one, please! If you order from mini-itx.com, you need to pay for shipping from England.
I have fond memories of the Atari 520ST. Ours had two floppy drives, and no cooling fans at all. It was silent when you weren't typing. I'd like an email/web/writing computer that is silent like that.
Okay, imagine that there's no copyright. Microsoft downloads EMACS, changes it so it says MSMACS, makes some little tweak to make it incompatible with normal EMACS, and sells it. No one can stop them, because there is no copyright. They give out source code to no one.
This is more similar to GPL than to BSD? I don't think so.
You are mistaken. GPL depends on copyright law! If there were no copyright law, GPL would be almost effectively equivalent to the BSD license.
The whole point of GPL is to force people to give back any changes they make to the code. And what forces them to give back? The copyright laws upon which GPL is based.
And forcing all software developers to use the GPL on all code they write really is a "far-fetched extreme thing".
I did not see any mention in the article about being denied the right to create commercial closed software.
Search Google for what Stallman said during the "Freedom Zero" debate. Stallman rejects the idea that you should be free to choose any license you want for software that you write; he believes that you should use the GPL. He never quite says he wants other licenses made illegal, but he has never ruled that out, either.
GNOMErs gleefully point [LGPL] out as the major selling point for GNOME over KDE.
There are many reasons why GNOME fans like GNOME. That is only one, and certainly not one that motivates RMS.
Bruce Perens has cited that as the reason why GNOME is better for a business distribution. He believes that if businesses want the option of running proprietary software, a business-oriented distribution should provide that option. RMS believes you are more free if you don't have that option, but he grudgingly concedes that sometimes that option is okay (which is why the LGPL even exists).
I spend a fair amount of time on my computer hobby. I tweak my setup of my computer. I update my Debian packages several times a week (I run Debian Unstable). So I understand what you are saying. Sometimes I have problems after I update my packages.
But the Linux computer I set up for my wife just runs and runs and runs. She never tweaks the settings. She just uses it, day in and day out. That computer has an uptime of three months now. In that time, she has had a few issues (a browser crash, or something else minor that didn't require much time to fix). If we add up my time for maintaining that computer, it's just a few minutes, spread over three months. Even if we count the time I spent updating her packages, that's still not very much time (I love DSL).
Part of the secret: I built that computer, using quality parts. I got her a really good power supply and top-quality memory. I provided good cooling, and I didn't overclock anything.
So I have fun hacking on my computer, and she has fun just using her computer, and we're both happy.
Forget STM, I just want a microscope to play with.
I have a QX3+ toy microscope. You plug it in to USB. I have heard that Linux can talk to it like any other USB camera (this one just happens to be built into a microscope) so I'm going to give that a go.
But what I really want is a microscope like the ones I used in biology classes, not a plastic toy. I want little knobs that move the stage around, rather than pushing the slide with my fingers. And I want a really high resolution camera.
eBay is probably a good place to find an affordable microscope; it could be used and I wouldn't care. But I have no idea how to tell which one is a good deal (I'm a computer geek, not a microscope geek). Any advice on what brand or model of microscope? And any advice on what sort of camera mount I could get?
Instead of a USB web cam, I'm thinking I should use a nice digital camera, such as a Nikon Coolpix 990. But I'm worried it would be top-heavy and would tip over easily. So pointers to a lightweight camera that can be attached to a microscope would also be welcome.
Would a third-party support company be an acceptable alternative to support from a vendor like Red Hat? Specifically, I'm thinking of Progeny.
Progeny supports Red Hat Linux (including versions that Red Hat doesn't support anymore), and Debian. Would your customers be happy with support from Progeny?
And if not Progeny, then maybe IBM's support? Or some other third party.
The 487SX was actually a 486DX in disguise. But Intel made the socket for it just a little different from the socket for the 486; IIRC it had an extra pin.
I was happy to see that the major PC manufacturers (Gateway, for one) simply put a ZIF socket for the CPU, and didn't bother to put in a 487SX socket like Intel wanted them to do. If you bought a 486SX and later wanted an FPU, you could then just unsocket the CPU and swap in a 486DX.
I don't remember any version where one chip was literally on top of another, though.
Richard Stallman is all about freedom for the users. He likes the GPL because it guarantees that the users will always have source code -- he despises proprietary code because the users don't get the source.
Thus the GPL has the restriction that you must release the source to your code if your code uses GPL'ed stuff. This restriction does not make GPL code more free, but is intended to promote free code.
BSD-licensed code is almost completely free of restrictions... but that means there is nothing in the BSD license to compel people to share their code. Some people claim that BSD is the "most free" license since it has the fewest restrictions; others feel that GPL is "most free" since it compels the free release of source code.
So, if you want to help promote the free software ethos, GPL is the best choice. If you are interested in preserving options for the authors of software, you might choose another license, such as LGPL or even BSD.
Even RMS admits that there are times when LGPL is appropriate, which is why he created it. I agree with Bruce Perens that LGPL libraries are better for UserLinux. I would love to see the "cottage industry" of small shareware programs that Bruce Perens has talked about. (And no doubt some of thse shareware programs will in time be released as free, GPL software.)
I don't know why you are bringing up the FreeQt agreements. I was talking about TrollTech going crazy and jacking up the developers' price. My point is that TrollTech has reserved the right to set the price for developers, and they might decide to charge more later. Especially if KDE becomes hugely successful.
TrollTech is free to charge what they want for Qt; it's theirs. I don't care. But we know how much a developer needs to pay to write payware for GNOME: $0. This makes the choice of GNOME for UserLinux a sensible one.
shareware is dead. It has been superceded by OSS software.
Don't be silly. There's still plenty of shareware around. I just paid the license fee for some shareware four days ago.
a typical developer's computer hardware itself probably cost four figures.
So what? You can write useful software on Linux using a $200 computer from Wal-Mart, or a used computer. Some people get a computer free as a going-away-to-college gift.
an app you want to sell for $15 but for which others are going to sell replacements for $0
A well-written app for $15 will make a few bucks. Some people would be content with that. Even now, with lots of free software around, you can find people selling their own programs. All I really need or want is gFTP, but there are still a whole bunch of FTP applications for sale.
Look, I guess you are comfortable with making sure that there will be no cottage industry associated with UserLinux. Bruce Perens isn't, and I agree with him. With Qt, you either get free software or else you get professional proprietary software, and nothing in-between. With GNOME, you can get the whole continuum between free and professional.
Heck, I'll be happy if we get a few $15 shareware games for Linux out of this deal.
EMACS is a text editor. So is vi. They are completely different animals, however.
vi is relatively small and fast compared to EMACS. It is modal: you need to switch between edit mode and text-entry mode a lot. Classic vi didn't have a scripting language (although it did have keystroke macros). vi commands are simple, and you combine them to do powerful things.
EMACS is built on a LISP interpreter, and over time rather sophisticated stuff has been done in and with EMACS. Some people spend their whole day in EMACS: they edit code, compile it, debug it, read their mail, read USENET news, and even browse the web, all from inside EMACS. (People make jokes comparing EMACS to an operating system.) EMACS isn't modal; you are always in text-entry mode, and there are many different powerful commands.
Back in the day, EMACS took much longer to start up than vi did, but modern computers render this comparison moot. Either one is pretty lightweight compared to, say, Mozilla. (An old joke is that EMACS takes forever to start up, but you don't care because once it's running you never leave it.)
I have tried to explain as fairly as I can. Now for the opinion part: I love vi, and hate EMACS. Partly it's an imprinting thing: I learned and used vi for years before trying EMACS. But also I love how you can do powerful things in vi with a few simple commands that combine together, I love how the commands are easy to type if you are a touch typist, and I don't mind the modal-ness. And I have never really taken a shine to LISP, so I don't want to use it for scripting my editor. And I hate remembering and typing commands like or whatever.
I use vim, an improved version of vi, and vim is available with a Python interface. Perfect.
I hope it's clear (to all the adults, anyway) that using vi or using EMACS doesn't make you a better person. The whole vi-vs-EMACS war is partly tongue-in-cheek anyway.
This is really just a, "We don't like KDE, so we've decided that nobody who uses our distro will use it."
No. You're wrong.
Bruce Perens said, repeatedly, that he feels that GNOME and KDE are exactly equal in features, and that there is no real technical superiority of either over the other. If the licenses were identical too, he would have had to flip a coin, he said.
And he took some pains to point out that he has recommended Qt as a solution for some of his clients, and that his publishing company just publised a book on KDE.
And it isn't even true that "nobody who uses [UserLinux] will use it." Since UserLinux is just Debian with a specific set of packages, there is no reason at all why you couldn't set up a KDE desktop on your UserLinux system. And you know what? If you did that, Bruce Perens wouldn't care.
Argh! Error in the second paragraph. It should say "you will need to understand GNOME... You will not need to understand KDE to get the certification..."
Don't forget that he isn't going to do anything that would pull KDE out of Debian. He isn't going to void the UserLinux certification of anyone who supports KDE. He is doing nothing against KDE.
If you want to be a certified UserLinux support guy, you will need to understand GNOME so you can support it. You will not need to understand GNOME to get the certification, but you can understand it if you want to. You can advertise yourself as a certified UserLinux expert who will support KDE, if you want.
So: UserLinux implies GNOME. UserLinux does not imply lack of KDE.
I think Bruce Perens is 100% correct on this issue. There is no reason to demand companies and consultants to grok two complete desktop environments, and there are good reasons why a standard distro like UserLinux should just have one. And if there is going to just be one, the one that is more free is the correct one. No one ever has to pay anyone for the privilege of writing apps for GNOME, even proprietary commercial apps, so it's the correct one.
Yes, go read the stories on Groklaw. IBM does indeed have a right to see the evidence against it; that was the core of the recent ruling that went against SCO. SCO said they didn't want to show any code until IBM gave them about ten billion things (e.g. the source code for every version ever of AIX). IBM argued that SCO needed to show some evidence, since they are the plaintiffs and all. The judge ruled completely for IBM, and SCO has 30 days to cough up specific evidence (which must include specific lines of Linux, no more of this "here's a few hundred source files; you figure out which lines infringe" they already tried). Also, IBM doesn't have to provide any evidence during the 30 days; all discovery is on hold until SCO provides the evidence.
All of the above is bad for SCO, good for IBM. As FreeUser insightfully observed above, this is an attempt by SCO to spin a FUD web since they desperately wish for some good news.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO is claiming that the SystemV contract specifies that they retain control over everything developed for SysV Unix
But if you follow what's going on (I read GROKLAW regularly) you see that SCO is just plain in flail mode. IBM's version of the SysV contract has an appendix that says "but anything IBM invents, IBM still owns." Whoops, there goes SCO's whole claim to JFS and just about everything else.
Meanwhile, SCO has tried to admit very vague claims, and the judge didn't permit it. So SCO has to produce specific claims. SCO also tried to demand a huge pile of stuff from IBM, and the judge didn't go for that, so SCO can't go fishing, looking for something of which to accuse IBM.
This is IBM. They are careful with contract stuff and IP stuff. SCO might manage to find some little point that IBM didn't handle 100% perfectly, but IBM will absolutely destroy SCO's main claims, and IBM's counter-suit against SCO will be enough to destroy SCO itself.
SCO has done a bad enough job in the court so far that it may not take 5 to 10 years before this gets decided in IBM's favor. The biggest issues might get thrown out completely before the case even goes to court! If that happens, the SCO stock price will plummet.
steveha
Okay, imagine that there's no copyright.
[...]
What's Microsoft?
Irrelevant to whether lack of copyright is equal to the GPL.
P.S. Microsoft would be hurt, but they would survive. They would no longer just sell software, they would make you actually sign a contract before you get the software. And if you say "now imagine both copyright and contract law vanishing", I won't bother to reply.
Note that Red Hat is making money supporting Linux. Microsoft could do something similar, and since they would never release the source code, they would have no competition in the support business for Windows.
Also note that without copyright, they could make a "MS Linux" by taking Linux source code, changing some internals to make it incompatible, and selling it. No one else could support that, either. (You may say that wise people won't buy it; that's true. I'm just pointing out that lack of copyright law would make it possible.)
steveha
I just noticed the Hush ATX system. It seems to be passively cooled, yet it has a Pentium 4. Presumably they could also build one with an AthlonXP but they don't seem to have one yet.
http://mini-itx.com/store/hush-atx.asp
steveha
won't a P4 system give me better "speed per dollar"?
/var or /tmp on the CompactFlash, this could work. (Make /usr and /etc read-only, and maybe make a CRAMFS for /home or something.) But you would be best off just accepting a hard disk; the hard disk is not the source of very much noise. Get one with fluid bearings. For complete silence, just do a net boot, and run your system purely out of RAM.
Actually, an AthlonXP will give the best speed per dollar, since it gets more done in a clock cycle. It's actually pretty close between Athlon and Pentium, but if you add in the cost of the electricity over the life of the computer, the AthlonXP will win.
What I would care about more is a silent and small (think book sized) system. When I say _silent_ (not just almost silent), I mean that it won't need a CPU fan, no power source fan and that it would be based around a 1GB compact flash card.
I have to quibble about the CompactFlash card. It really isn't a very good way to set up your computer: an OS that expects a hard drive will wear out your CompactFlash quickly. If you are willing to run Linux, and you don't put
Note that you really don't need a 1 Gbit ethernet connection; 100 Mbit will be just fine for a net boot config. I used to use UNIX workstations that had NFS mounted directories over 10 Mbit Ethernet and I rarely noticed any speed difference from the local directories. Not that many years ago, a 10 MB/sec drive interface was considered "fast", and 100 Mbit/sec is about as fast as that. I think you will notice a busy CPU more than you will notice the network speed.
As for the rest of what you want, it is possible with a Via C3 today. It will be possible with a Crusoe chip when the Mini-ITX Crusoe boards ship.
I have a serious case of techno-lust for a Hush computer. Look how well it meets your specs, right down to a fanless power supply (it has a transformer "brick" in the power cord). Note that they offer Seagate drives with fluid bearings (quiet) and even 2.5" laptop drives (should be even quieter, but also slower).
http://mini-itx.com/store/hush.asp?currency=2
Directron doesn't carry it, but they might someday. If you live in the USA, let Directron know you want one, please! If you order from mini-itx.com, you need to pay for shipping from England.
http://store.yahoo.com/directron/hushminiitx.html
Check out the other Via C3 options. The Tranquil PC also looks good:
http://mini-itx.com/store/tranquilpc.asp
I have fond memories of the Atari 520ST. Ours had two floppy drives, and no cooling fans at all. It was silent when you weren't typing. I'd like an email/web/writing computer that is silent like that.
steveha
Okay, imagine that there's no copyright. Microsoft downloads EMACS, changes it so it says MSMACS, makes some little tweak to make it incompatible with normal EMACS, and sells it. No one can stop them, because there is no copyright. They give out source code to no one.
This is more similar to GPL than to BSD? I don't think so.
steveha
You are mistaken. GPL depends on copyright law! If there were no copyright law, GPL would be almost effectively equivalent to the BSD license.
The whole point of GPL is to force people to give back any changes they make to the code. And what forces them to give back? The copyright laws upon which GPL is based.
And forcing all software developers to use the GPL on all code they write really is a "far-fetched extreme thing".
steveha
I did not see any mention in the article about being denied the right to create commercial closed software.
8 -17-016-20-OP-CY
Search Google for what Stallman said during the "Freedom Zero" debate. Stallman rejects the idea that you should be free to choose any license you want for software that you write; he believes that you should use the GPL. He never quite says he wants other licenses made illegal, but he has never ruled that out, either.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-0
steveha
Why, then, does he advocate GNOME
"Because it's part of the GNU system."
GNOMErs gleefully point [LGPL] out as the major selling point for GNOME over KDE.
There are many reasons why GNOME fans like GNOME. That is only one, and certainly not one that motivates RMS.
Bruce Perens has cited that as the reason why GNOME is better for a business distribution. He believes that if businesses want the option of running proprietary software, a business-oriented distribution should provide that option. RMS believes you are more free if you don't have that option, but he grudgingly concedes that sometimes that option is okay (which is why the LGPL even exists).
steveha
I spend a fair amount of time on my computer hobby. I tweak my setup of my computer. I update my Debian packages several times a week (I run Debian Unstable). So I understand what you are saying. Sometimes I have problems after I update my packages.
But the Linux computer I set up for my wife just runs and runs and runs. She never tweaks the settings. She just uses it, day in and day out. That computer has an uptime of three months now. In that time, she has had a few issues (a browser crash, or something else minor that didn't require much time to fix). If we add up my time for maintaining that computer, it's just a few minutes, spread over three months. Even if we count the time I spent updating her packages, that's still not very much time (I love DSL).
Part of the secret: I built that computer, using quality parts. I got her a really good power supply and top-quality memory. I provided good cooling, and I didn't overclock anything.
So I have fun hacking on my computer, and she has fun just using her computer, and we're both happy.
Linux on a quality computer can be very stable.
steveha
Forget STM, I just want a microscope to play with.
I have a QX3+ toy microscope. You plug it in to USB. I have heard that Linux can talk to it like any other USB camera (this one just happens to be built into a microscope) so I'm going to give that a go.
But what I really want is a microscope like the ones I used in biology classes, not a plastic toy. I want little knobs that move the stage around, rather than pushing the slide with my fingers. And I want a really high resolution camera.
eBay is probably a good place to find an affordable microscope; it could be used and I wouldn't care. But I have no idea how to tell which one is a good deal (I'm a computer geek, not a microscope geek). Any advice on what brand or model of microscope? And any advice on what sort of camera mount I could get?
Instead of a USB web cam, I'm thinking I should use a nice digital camera, such as a Nikon Coolpix 990. But I'm worried it would be top-heavy and would tip over easily. So pointers to a lightweight camera that can be attached to a microscope would also be welcome.
steveha
Actually, I saw some TV show about famous ads, and the "Little Tramp" ads were touted as really good and really effective ads.
But I agree that the PCjr was such a lousy computer that the marketing didn't really matter much.
steveha
we ran into issues, namely support.
Would a third-party support company be an acceptable alternative to support from a vendor like Red Hat? Specifically, I'm thinking of Progeny.
Progeny supports Red Hat Linux (including versions that Red Hat doesn't support anymore), and Debian. Would your customers be happy with support from Progeny?
And if not Progeny, then maybe IBM's support? Or some other third party.
steveha
The 487SX was actually a 486DX in disguise. But Intel made the socket for it just a little different from the socket for the 486; IIRC it had an extra pin.
I was happy to see that the major PC manufacturers (Gateway, for one) simply put a ZIF socket for the CPU, and didn't bother to put in a 487SX socket like Intel wanted them to do. If you bought a 486SX and later wanted an FPU, you could then just unsocket the CPU and swap in a 486DX.
I don't remember any version where one chip was literally on top of another, though.
steveha
Richard Stallman is all about freedom for the users. He likes the GPL because it guarantees that the users will always have source code -- he despises proprietary code because the users don't get the source.
Thus the GPL has the restriction that you must release the source to your code if your code uses GPL'ed stuff. This restriction does not make GPL code more free, but is intended to promote free code.
BSD-licensed code is almost completely free of restrictions... but that means there is nothing in the BSD license to compel people to share their code. Some people claim that BSD is the "most free" license since it has the fewest restrictions; others feel that GPL is "most free" since it compels the free release of source code.
So, if you want to help promote the free software ethos, GPL is the best choice. If you are interested in preserving options for the authors of software, you might choose another license, such as LGPL or even BSD.
Even RMS admits that there are times when LGPL is appropriate, which is why he created it. I agree with Bruce Perens that LGPL libraries are better for UserLinux. I would love to see the "cottage industry" of small shareware programs that Bruce Perens has talked about. (And no doubt some of thse shareware programs will in time be released as free, GPL software.)
steveha
I don't know why you are bringing up the FreeQt agreements. I was talking about TrollTech going crazy and jacking up the developers' price. My point is that TrollTech has reserved the right to set the price for developers, and they might decide to charge more later. Especially if KDE becomes hugely successful.
TrollTech is free to charge what they want for Qt; it's theirs. I don't care. But we know how much a developer needs to pay to write payware for GNOME: $0. This makes the choice of GNOME for UserLinux a sensible one.
shareware is dead. It has been superceded by OSS software.
Don't be silly. There's still plenty of shareware around. I just paid the license fee for some shareware four days ago.
steveha
a typical developer's computer hardware itself probably cost four figures.
So what? You can write useful software on Linux using a $200 computer from Wal-Mart, or a used computer. Some people get a computer free as a going-away-to-college gift.
an app you want to sell for $15 but for which others are going to sell replacements for $0
A well-written app for $15 will make a few bucks. Some people would be content with that. Even now, with lots of free software around, you can find people selling their own programs. All I really need or want is gFTP, but there are still a whole bunch of FTP applications for sale.
Look, I guess you are comfortable with making sure that there will be no cottage industry associated with UserLinux. Bruce Perens isn't, and I agree with him. With Qt, you either get free software or else you get professional proprietary software, and nothing in-between. With GNOME, you can get the whole continuum between free and professional.
Heck, I'll be happy if we get a few $15 shareware games for Linux out of this deal.
steveha
If you need to invest $2000 to write an app you want to sell for $15, you won't even write the $15 app.
steveha
You've got to pay Trolltech a $2000 per-developer fee, but if you're making commercial apps, you should have no problem
So much for the shareware market. So much for a simple app that costs $15.
$2000 is huge.
And what happens if TrollTech goes insane and starts charging ten times as much? Or starts demanding that you sign weird licenses?
steveha
EMACS is a text editor. So is vi. They are completely different animals, however.
vi is relatively small and fast compared to EMACS. It is modal: you need to switch between edit mode and text-entry mode a lot. Classic vi didn't have a scripting language (although it did have keystroke macros). vi commands are simple, and you combine them to do powerful things.
EMACS is built on a LISP interpreter, and over time rather sophisticated stuff has been done in and with EMACS. Some people spend their whole day in EMACS: they edit code, compile it, debug it, read their mail, read USENET news, and even browse the web, all from inside EMACS. (People make jokes comparing EMACS to an operating system.) EMACS isn't modal; you are always in text-entry mode, and there are many different powerful commands.
Back in the day, EMACS took much longer to start up than vi did, but modern computers render this comparison moot. Either one is pretty lightweight compared to, say, Mozilla. (An old joke is that EMACS takes forever to start up, but you don't care because once it's running you never leave it.)
I have tried to explain as fairly as I can. Now for the opinion part: I love vi, and hate EMACS. Partly it's an imprinting thing: I learned and used vi for years before trying EMACS. But also I love how you can do powerful things in vi with a few simple commands that combine together, I love how the commands are easy to type if you are a touch typist, and I don't mind the modal-ness. And I have never really taken a shine to LISP, so I don't want to use it for scripting my editor. And I hate remembering and typing commands like or whatever.
I use vim, an improved version of vi, and vim is available with a Python interface. Perfect.
I hope it's clear (to all the adults, anyway) that using vi or using EMACS doesn't make you a better person. The whole vi-vs-EMACS war is partly tongue-in-cheek anyway.
steveha
This is really just a, "We don't like KDE, so we've decided that nobody who uses our distro will use it."
No. You're wrong.
Bruce Perens said, repeatedly, that he feels that GNOME and KDE are exactly equal in features, and that there is no real technical superiority of either over the other. If the licenses were identical too, he would have had to flip a coin, he said.
And he took some pains to point out that he has recommended Qt as a solution for some of his clients, and that his publishing company just publised a book on KDE.
And it isn't even true that "nobody who uses [UserLinux] will use it." Since UserLinux is just Debian with a specific set of packages, there is no reason at all why you couldn't set up a KDE desktop on your UserLinux system. And you know what? If you did that, Bruce Perens wouldn't care.
steveha
Argh! Error in the second paragraph. It should say "you will need to understand GNOME... You will not need to understand KDE to get the certification..."
Sorry for the mistake.
steveha
Don't forget that he isn't going to do anything that would pull KDE out of Debian. He isn't going to void the UserLinux certification of anyone who supports KDE. He is doing nothing against KDE.
If you want to be a certified UserLinux support guy, you will need to understand GNOME so you can support it. You will not need to understand GNOME to get the certification, but you can understand it if you want to. You can advertise yourself as a certified UserLinux expert who will support KDE, if you want.
So: UserLinux implies GNOME. UserLinux does not imply lack of KDE.
I think Bruce Perens is 100% correct on this issue. There is no reason to demand companies and consultants to grok two complete desktop environments, and there are good reasons why a standard distro like UserLinux should just have one. And if there is going to just be one, the one that is more free is the correct one. No one ever has to pay anyone for the privilege of writing apps for GNOME, even proprietary commercial apps, so it's the correct one.
steveha
Yes, go read the stories on Groklaw. IBM does indeed have a right to see the evidence against it; that was the core of the recent ruling that went against SCO. SCO said they didn't want to show any code until IBM gave them about ten billion things (e.g. the source code for every version ever of AIX). IBM argued that SCO needed to show some evidence, since they are the plaintiffs and all. The judge ruled completely for IBM, and SCO has 30 days to cough up specific evidence (which must include specific lines of Linux, no more of this "here's a few hundred source files; you figure out which lines infringe" they already tried). Also, IBM doesn't have to provide any evidence during the 30 days; all discovery is on hold until SCO provides the evidence.
All of the above is bad for SCO, good for IBM. As FreeUser insightfully observed above, this is an attempt by SCO to spin a FUD web since they desperately wish for some good news.
steveha
Don't be daft. He wanted recommendations for good multiplayer games, which isn't the same thing as "are there any games that work on Linux?"
steveha
I'm running Win4Lin 5.x... not sure the exact version.
The last four or so times I tried Windows Update it failed. So I just now tried it again and it worked perfectly. I didn't change anything!
So I guess Windows Update works fine with Win4Lin. Good to know.
My Win98SE system is now up to date with the latest Windows Update. I hardly ever use it, but that's nice to know.
steveha