I figure that MS has enough bucks to promote their own monoploy
Maybe they could give some to VA in change for some slashdot headline on MS products (I suspect others doing just that, in some not-so-open form): i believe that MS-haters are not anymore the majority of/.ers,acording to the posts. Sure, flamewars will rage, but this will only mean more hits for/., thus more ads money.
I remember MS Word format description being published in some MS Web site.
The problem are the undocumented features and the fact that you have always to dance at MS tune to keep compliance with a changing non-standardized format (though doing filters with Very High Level Languages could make things tad easier today ).
As much important as doing filters for MS doc formats is define an easy way for users of differen OSS apps to share their documents (at least defining a better version of RTF, but the
best would be to use full standardized document formats).
So, what if an exploit is found for some of the Linux software running on it? Has it upgrade capabilities? If so, what prevents people to tamper with that? (you don't need tampering with the hardware, if you can crack its software).
With Linux and OSS in general you have to go with the flow: place a few developers in the strategic OSS projects and wait for them to gain expertise and acknowledgement from the community. Never rush ahead of the crowds(like Corel did), but instead gently push in the directions you want to go, gatering all the consensus you can from the community (and, why not, even collaborate with would-be competitors). Never put too much investment in single products, because you wont be able to recover the investiment unless you make the product proprietary (and in such case you go out of Linux and OSS market and you must compete with MS).
RH and others understand this. Corel didn't. They tried to rush ahead, invested too much in their own software (and in marketing and such: Corel boxes where everywhere ). They isolated themselves from Linux community, aiming to the larger market of computers users. But their product was not enough palatable for this market, owned my MS: not enough compatible with MS software, still based on an OS that most hardware vendors do not support, sold at the same price of Windows 95/98, which most users don't see as a cost because it is pre-installed on any new PC.
Therefore Corel failed. But there is money in Linux. Maybe not the quick and fast money that corporations and shareholders would like, however. More the slow but steadily increasing money coming from a well-done work and from the availability of a large amount of 'building blocks' from which professionals and amateurs around the world can build their own personal computer solutions.
Someone should create some sort of presskit that journalists can use when they reference Linux so that they don't get it wrong, like the(y) usually do.
Someone did : from www.linux.org:
Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers around the world. Developed under the GNU General Public License , the source code for Linux is freely available to everyone.
I think this is the officially blessed definition of Linux, to be quoted in press release and such.
Which GUI you are referring to? The installer? Because the rest was based on KDE 1.x as far as I can remember (I had COREL 1.0 for a while ). So it should not be proprietary, unless they violated the GPL.
Uhm. Not that I understood very much of it. What exactly does this co-processor thing?
My assuptions (based more on guesswork than on the article):
Generates public/private key using internal random generators
exports the public key (no way to know the private key, or the whole thing would be useless)
Fast encoding for outgoing data:
in: clear data;
out : data cripted with private key
If somebody tamper with it, destroys the private key (??)
What else (or something completely different) ?
Also, how does Linux fit in the picture. It is used to run the co-processor (??) or to run a box including a general-purpose processor and the co-processor?
Re:Evolution of customer expectations and software
on
NYSE Goes To Linux
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps OS's like Linux contribute to the bloatware cycle for MS? Just a thought.
IMO, the existence of competing free software can only push software vendors to improve their products (not only adding features, but also with better quality).
If Win2000 crashes less than NT, it is also because Linux demonstrated that BSODs are not an inevitable fact of life (now there are also kernel panics: variety is good:).
Re:Not bad, but not as big as one might think.
on
NYSE Goes To Linux
·
· Score: 1
OS/390? No, it'll probably be running Linux. Maybe as a bunch of VM's, or maybe on the bare metal
The last I read, Linux can run on IBM mainframe only inside a VM ( that is inside OS/390 ? ).
How does Linus feel about this? :-). Dunno. Never done it myself. How a Virtual Machine compares to, say, a Ferrari ?
Actually what you say it is true also for other kind of office desktops: the apps used (at least for work) are few and the set of applications used by a business does not change much over the years (unless they are forced to).
This is why any Linux distro could do very well as office desktop ( good security, centralized management, no licence costs,blah blah... ) BUT for one point:interoperability with other business using different software ( not only MS : think of one office using KOffice trying to open documents generated with StarOffice ).
Re:Not bad, but not as big as one might think.
on
NYSE Goes To Linux
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I would speculate they weren't running NT before if it was that easy to port their software over.
They where using Solaris on SUN HW (it is said somewhere else in the article ).
Yes, they are replacing expensive UNIX machines with less expensive(?) Linux boxes, plus a bunch of proprietary software (Tivoli is mentioned), plus an IBM mainframe (also mentioned in the article) presumably running IBM mainframe OS (can't remember the name) with mayby Linus as 'Virtual OS' of each 'Virtual Machine'.
It is interesting that IBM did not propose their own version of Unix. Maybe it is true that they are dropping it in favor of Linux. Or maybe it is because AIX does not run on Intel CPU (or it does?) and would have made the deal much more expensive.
Surely they have managed to badly hit SUN, both on money and on PR level. En passant, they have managed to promote Linux as a valid (and most of all cheap) platform on which build proprietary solutions. One could hope that other UNIX vendors (including SUN itself) follows and that Linux can become really the 'Unix Defragmentation Tool'. It would be something, at least.
My!
Never seen so much rumblings at once! Are you applying as prophet of the newly founded church?
:-?
I think that religion and business have battled already a million times.
Most of times bussiness won. Not because of 'evil power of money' or such: simply because most people (including possibly myself) start caring for their soul only after their belly is filled.
BTW, for the little I know of US the vote of 'religious people' is split almost 50-50 among rebublicans and democrats (are they both right wingers?).
If they really want to do it ...
on
IBM Wants Linux
·
· Score: 2
they should:
open-source AIX core elements
either support gcc or make an alternative open-source compiler that generates good code for their platforms
officially support the OSS software that their customers want to run on IBM boxes ( like they do for apache - sort of ).
Of course, the dream thing would be if they officially supported an open-source kernel, too (not necessarly Linux).
But I would settle on a close-source kernel (after all, nobody should know their CPU better than themselves) toghether with all the open-source goodies which I love, officially compiled and supported by SUN.
Thanks to sites like freesolaris ( once openly linked by SUN, but now no more ), I already have somethink like this ( also because most SUN software has orrible price/quality ratio. Take Forte, for instance...).
Make the compiler generate an human-readable
(ASCII and properly indented) version of the symbol table of a module/class, so that programmers don't have to dig in a thousand lines of code only to discover the interface of a public method;
BTW, I hope there is some provision for public/private methods/attributes (did not find it, but did not read the whole specs); large projects cannot rely only on programmers 'sense of responsibility';
Borrow ruby's accessors, but with a less mangled syntax: something like 'readwrite int foo'
that generates automatic 'int getFoo()' and 'void setFoo(int)' methods, while a 'readonly int foo'
generates only 'int getFoo()', meaning that the attribute is only changed inside the class.
A doc tool a la javadoc, which helps generating consistent documentation from code (main goal: the developer should not be forced to repeat in the documentations things which are already stated in the code). Maybe an optional
'description { text }' clause after the definition of main items.
But for now, we have a magic cloning ray which only works for artistic taxy cars... so scarcity is still an issue. And people relies on its creativity and intellectual work to solve it.
It is up to the author of a book to decide if they want to print it or they want the scribes to duplicate it by hand. Nobody IMO has the right to take a scroll made by a scribe and make thousand of press copies of it without author permission.
Let's suppose tha you had just spent one whole month painting a very cool picture on the hood of your car. Also assume that you are a taxy driver and that you now hope to attract more clients with your very artistic car.
Then you wake up next morning and discover that thanks to the cloning ray every other tax driver has a car identical to yours.
Wouldn't you be more than a little pissed of?
Accordying with the definition you quote, infringing copyright is not stealing: you are not taking without permission, you are just using without permisson.
Stealing is extra-emphasys put by the copyright holders, which also call the infringers (sp?) pirates.
Said that, I _do_ recognize the natural right of an author to dispose of the product of its work as he/she wants, including allowing only users with blue eyes to use it, and only on Wednesday from 15:00 to 17:00, while standing upside-down, at the modicum price of $100 per second. The same goes (unfortunately) for any entity the author transfer the right to.
We should realize that copyright/patent laws are not inalienable rights but rather privleges granted to encourage innovation and thereby total
utility.
Are they? I've read this sentence many times, and I admit that it sounds nice. I understand the principle behind it: intellectual products are born out of a sea of free [or maybe collectively-owned] other products : what we learn at school, what we listen around, what we discuss with other people, what we read on books and on the internet. It is this pool of common knowledge that makes today science and technology possible (and music and books and many other aspect of today culture).
But then I try to apply the old rule "Do upon others...". I believe I have the right to decide what others should do with my work. I am not talking of silly patents on general purpose ideas, but of the actual finished work, like a book, a song or a piece of software. If I decide to add it to the pool of common knowledge, I want the right that nobody can spoil my gift : this is what free software licences attempt to prevent. But I also want the right to decide to keep my work for myself, or allowing people to use it in change of money. It is un-social, it might be unethical, but I still consider it my right ( as I consider my right not to give half of my money to the beggars I meet every day).
Therefore I respect such right in others, too. I don't copy software illegaly(not a big effort today, thanks to free software people). I don't copy music illegaly (but my very limited musical needs are easily satisfied by listening to the radio). I don't pirate videos (though I'm tempted).
Sure, consumers have right, too. But they are more pressing for first-need items (instruction, food, shelter) than for products of the entartainement industry.
I also understand fair use - but I don't think it should be envorced by law, except for few exceptions. It should be enforced only by eductated consumers, via market laws.
When faced with an unfair licence, I consider as my only options either accept it or not to buy ithe item covered by such licence.
If Hollywood industry decided that only blond-haired 2-meter-tall people can whatch their movies, I would consider it their right to do so, albeit I would encourage my blond 2M tall friends to boycot them. I would still consioder wrong to copy their movies to allow bald short people to watch them.
1- The 'declared-not-but-actually-so' snide comment in the 'article' is probably just a way to generate more hits in a dead summer day, and then make more money with ads. And it worked. I have noticed an increase of flame-generating remarks & topics in the headlines, lately. Probably a sign of poor ads revenue for./ editors and owners.
2- The moderation system in./ obviously favors the opinion of the majority of its readers... but better this than having a few selected ones to decide what is good ant what is evil.
OTOH, I have noticed a sensible shift of the 'average opinion' lately on./, in favor of non-free e MSish ideas : maybe the Linux/Free Software/Open Source thing is looking less cool for some. Or maybe BG has his employees routinely
post on./ and then acquiring moderation points and moderating up each others (and maybe big Linux players are doing exactly the same for years). Conspiration theories are always in fashion.
3- Saying 'go on and moderate me down' is one of the most successful karma-woring tricks on./...
as you probably know. This worked, too.
Open Source isn't really good for anyone. It primarily serves to devalue the economic worth of software development, thereby reducing standards of living for professional programmers and impeding the technological advance of software.
You mean : how can we make money by writing software, when there is around so much software for free?
Answer:making _really_ _new_ software. Really innovating, building on the solid basement of open-source software.
You don't have to open-source the software you write, if you dont feel to (and don't brag on 'viral' GPL : most of libraries are at least LGPL, or distributed with more liberal licences.
Open source make it hard to make money by selling _old_ software based on recycled ideas. Any real innovation would sell easily, until OSS developers can catch with it. Enough for repaying of development costs. Not enough for becoming a new Gill Bates (is that what you want?).
Moreover open source makes possible for small shop of developers all around the world to build and sell customized software solutions based on open-source item. These shops would never mass-sell boxes of ther product, and they gladly releases the source if this mean cheaper improvements and maintenance.
Developers working in vertical market segments, like me, can also benefit from the pletora of open source tools out there to build higly specialized software solution. They could even open-source their software, since usually the customers already paid for its development. And the curstomer would benefit from open-sourcing it, since il would nman cheaper upgrade and maintenance.
Conclusion: open-source is only bad for companies that sell the same old crap for years and years, keeping their customer base locked to their products by any means.
Today, a lot of software companies are like that.
Tomorrow, it will have to change, thanks to open source, and for the greater benefit of users. [Even MS has been forced to put out a better OS because of Linux].
Actually, for the people Windows (the desktop at least) is already at 0$ cost. They get it with their new computer. Yes, they pay for it, but they don't understand it. Even many linux users accept to buy computers with windows pre-installed (and payed for), because it is hard to find an alternative.
For people to make price/performance assessments, they should have the possibility to choose between two computers with the same hardware, one running an OSS system, the other running a MS system. And there will still be the issue of the application base (although OSS applications could benefit of their $0 tag).
Servers are a differen matter: Win2000 costs quite a lot. And you don't need so many applications (or games) for it.
As for work-place office desktops, they are a middle ground. MS still has better applications and owns most of the marker, making it difficult for a Linux-based shop to inter-operate with others using MS products. On the other hand, OSS office applications are impoving, and they do not have per-user licence fee (or licence fee at all). And work-place office desktops have less esotic hardware and do not need games, so the lack of commercial support is less an issue, here.
Basically, Linux is not a 'ready to run' OS (no matter which distro you are using). It is a toolbox.
This mean that:
- you should know which tool to pick
- you should know how to put tools togheter.
Once you know that, you can assemble a quite reliable and usable desktop (no, not usable as a MS desktop, but more for lack of commercial support than for lack of software/bad software).
I still have the Win98 partition around on my desktop but it is more than one year I did not use it.And when I needed more disk on my laptop, I did not esitated(much) before removing Win95. The application I use dayly are a lot more reliable than you mentioned (and this includes a rather sperimental mozilla 0.91 and gnome 1.4 without Nautilus ). Up to now, upgrades never left me without a system (I use Debian/testing, but I am careful with what to upgrade).
To use Linux, you shall first accept that an important part of your computer solution is _yourself_. No, this does not mean that you have to be a programmer. It means only that standard linux software[up to now] will not attempt (and badly fail) to think for you. But it will perform faultlessy a miriad of boring and repetitive tasks, leaving you the time to think.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they could give some to VA in change for some slashdot headline on MS products (I suspect others doing just that, in some not-so-open form): i believe that MS-haters are not anymore the majority of /.ers,acording to the posts. Sure, flamewars will rage, but this will only mean more hits for /., thus more ads money.
The problem are the undocumented features and the fact that you have always to dance at MS tune to keep compliance with a changing non-standardized format (though doing filters with Very High Level Languages could make things tad easier today ).
As much important as doing filters for MS doc formats is define an easy way for users of differen OSS apps to share their documents (at least defining a better version of RTF, but the best would be to use full standardized document formats).
So, what if an exploit is found for some of the Linux software running on it? Has it upgrade capabilities? If so, what prevents people to tamper with that? (you don't need tampering with the hardware, if you can crack its software).
RH and others understand this. Corel didn't. They tried to rush ahead, invested too much in their own software (and in marketing and such: Corel boxes where everywhere ). They isolated themselves from Linux community, aiming to the larger market of computers users. But their product was not enough palatable for this market, owned my MS: not enough compatible with MS software, still based on an OS that most hardware vendors do not support, sold at the same price of Windows 95/98, which most users don't see as a cost because it is pre-installed on any new PC.
Therefore Corel failed. But there is money in Linux. Maybe not the quick and fast money that corporations and shareholders would like, however. More the slow but steadily increasing money coming from a well-done work and from the availability of a large amount of 'building blocks' from which professionals and amateurs around the world can build their own personal computer solutions.
Someone did : from www.linux.org:
I think this is the officially blessed definition of Linux, to be quoted in press release and such.
I half-remember now ... the file manager was proprietary, and maybe some of the 'modules' inside the KDE Control Center.
Which GUI you are referring to? The installer? Because the rest was based on KDE 1.x as far as I can remember (I had COREL 1.0 for a while ). So it should not be proprietary, unless they violated the GPL.
What else (or something completely different) ?
Also, how does Linux fit in the picture. It is used to run the co-processor (??) or to run a box including a general-purpose processor and the co-processor?
IMO, the existence of competing free software can only push software vendors to improve their products (not only adding features, but also with better quality). :).
If Win2000 crashes less than NT, it is also because Linux demonstrated that BSODs are not an inevitable fact of life (now there are also kernel panics: variety is good
The last I read, Linux can run on IBM mainframe only inside a VM ( that is inside OS/390 ? ).
How does Linus feel about this?
:-). Dunno. Never done it myself. How a Virtual Machine compares to, say, a Ferrari ?
This is why any Linux distro could do very well as office desktop ( good security, centralized management, no licence costs,blah blah ... ) BUT for one point:interoperability with other business using different software ( not only MS : think of one office using KOffice trying to open documents generated with StarOffice ).
They where using Solaris on SUN HW (it is said somewhere else in the article ).
Yes, they are replacing expensive UNIX machines with less expensive(?) Linux boxes, plus a bunch of proprietary software (Tivoli is mentioned), plus an IBM mainframe (also mentioned in the article) presumably running IBM mainframe OS (can't remember the name) with mayby Linus as 'Virtual OS' of each 'Virtual Machine'.
It is interesting that IBM did not propose their own version of Unix. Maybe it is true that they are dropping it in favor of Linux. Or maybe it is because AIX does not run on Intel CPU (or it does?) and would have made the deal much more expensive.
Surely they have managed to badly hit SUN, both on money and on PR level. En passant, they have managed to promote Linux as a valid (and most of all cheap) platform on which build proprietary solutions. One could hope that other UNIX vendors (including SUN itself) follows and that Linux can become really the 'Unix Defragmentation Tool'. It would be something, at least.
My!
Never seen so much rumblings at once! Are you applying as prophet of the newly founded church?
:-?
I think that religion and business have battled already a million times.
Most of times bussiness won. Not because of 'evil power of money' or such: simply because most people (including possibly myself) start caring for their soul only after their belly is filled.
BTW, for the little I know of US the vote of 'religious people' is split almost 50-50 among rebublicans and democrats (are they both right wingers?).
But I would settle on a close-source kernel (after all, nobody should know their CPU better than themselves) toghether with all the open-source goodies which I love, officially compiled and supported by SUN.
Thanks to sites like freesolaris ( once openly linked by SUN, but now no more ), I already have somethink like this ( also because most SUN software has orrible price/quality ratio. Take Forte, for instance ...).
It is up to the author of a book to decide if they want to print it or they want the scribes to duplicate it by hand. Nobody IMO has the right to take a scroll made by a scribe and make thousand of press copies of it without author permission.
Let's suppose tha you had just spent one whole month painting a very cool picture on the hood of your car. Also assume that you are a taxy driver and that you now hope to attract more clients with your very artistic car.
Then you wake up next morning and discover that thanks to the cloning ray every other tax driver has a car identical to yours.
Wouldn't you be more than a little pissed of?
Stealing is extra-emphasys put by the copyright holders, which also call the infringers (sp?) pirates.
Said that, I _do_ recognize the natural right of an author to dispose of the product of its work as he/she wants, including allowing only users with blue eyes to use it, and only on Wednesday from 15:00 to 17:00, while standing upside-down, at the modicum price of $100 per second. The same goes (unfortunately) for any entity the author transfer the right to.
Are they? I've read this sentence many times, and I admit that it sounds nice. I understand the principle behind it: intellectual products are born out of a sea of free [or maybe collectively-owned] other products : what we learn at school, what we listen around, what we discuss with other people, what we read on books and on the internet. It is this pool of common knowledge that makes today science and technology possible (and music and books and many other aspect of today culture).
But then I try to apply the old rule "Do upon others ...". I believe I have the right to decide what others should do with my work. I am not talking of silly patents on general purpose ideas, but of the actual finished work, like a book, a song or a piece of software. If I decide to add it to the pool of common knowledge, I want the right that nobody can spoil my gift : this is what free software licences attempt to prevent. But I also want the right to decide to keep my work for myself, or allowing people to use it in change of money. It is un-social, it might be unethical, but I still consider it my right ( as I consider my right not to give half of my money to the beggars I meet every day).
Therefore I respect such right in others, too. I don't copy software illegaly(not a big effort today, thanks to free software people). I don't copy music illegaly (but my very limited musical needs are easily satisfied by listening to the radio). I don't pirate videos (though I'm tempted).
Sure, consumers have right, too. But they are more pressing for first-need items (instruction, food, shelter) than for products of the entartainement industry.
I also understand fair use - but I don't think it should be envorced by law, except for few exceptions. It should be enforced only by eductated consumers, via market laws.
When faced with an unfair licence, I consider as my only options either accept it or not to buy ithe item covered by such licence. If Hollywood industry decided that only blond-haired 2-meter-tall people can whatch their movies, I would consider it their right to do so, albeit I would encourage my blond 2M tall friends to boycot them. I would still consioder wrong to copy their movies to allow bald short people to watch them.
2- The moderation system in ./ obviously favors the opinion of the majority of its readers ... but better this than having a few selected ones to decide what is good ant what is evil. ./, in favor of non-free e MSish ideas : maybe the Linux/Free Software/Open Source thing is looking less cool for some. Or maybe BG has his employees routinely
post on ./ and then acquiring moderation points and moderating up each others (and maybe big Linux players are doing exactly the same for years). Conspiration theories are always in fashion.
OTOH, I have noticed a sensible shift of the 'average opinion' lately on
3- Saying 'go on and moderate me down' is one of the most successful karma-woring tricks on ./ ...
as you probably know. This worked, too.
You mean : how can we make money by writing software, when there is around so much software for free?
Answer :making _really_ _new_ software. Really innovating, building on the solid basement of open-source software.
You don't have to open-source the software you write, if you dont feel to (and don't brag on 'viral' GPL : most of libraries are at least LGPL, or distributed with more liberal licences.
Open source make it hard to make money by selling _old_ software based on recycled ideas. Any real innovation would sell easily, until OSS developers can catch with it. Enough for repaying of development costs. Not enough for becoming a new Gill Bates (is that what you want?).
Moreover open source makes possible for small shop of developers all around the world to build and sell customized software solutions based on open-source item. These shops would never mass-sell boxes of ther product, and they gladly releases the source if this mean cheaper improvements and maintenance.
Developers working in vertical market segments, like me, can also benefit from the pletora of open source tools out there to build higly specialized software solution. They could even open-source their software, since usually the customers already paid for its development. And the curstomer would benefit from open-sourcing it, since il would nman cheaper upgrade and maintenance.
Conclusion: open-source is only bad for companies that sell the same old crap for years and years, keeping their customer base locked to their products by any means.
Today, a lot of software companies are like that. Tomorrow, it will have to change, thanks to open source, and for the greater benefit of users. [Even MS has been forced to put out a better OS because of Linux].
For people to make price/performance assessments, they should have the possibility to choose between two computers with the same hardware, one running an OSS system, the other running a MS system. And there will still be the issue of the application base (although OSS applications could benefit of their $0 tag).
Servers are a differen matter: Win2000 costs quite a lot. And you don't need so many applications (or games) for it.
As for work-place office desktops, they are a middle ground. MS still has better applications and owns most of the marker, making it difficult for a Linux-based shop to inter-operate with others using MS products. On the other hand, OSS office applications are impoving, and they do not have per-user licence fee (or licence fee at all). And work-place office desktops have less esotic hardware and do not need games, so the lack of commercial support is less an issue, here.
- you should know which tool to pick
- you should know how to put tools togheter.
Once you know that, you can assemble a quite reliable and usable desktop (no, not usable as a MS desktop, but more for lack of commercial support than for lack of software/bad software).
I still have the Win98 partition around on my desktop but it is more than one year I did not use it.And when I needed more disk on my laptop, I did not esitated(much) before removing Win95.
The application I use dayly are a lot more reliable than you mentioned (and this includes a rather sperimental mozilla 0.91 and gnome 1.4 without Nautilus ). Up to now, upgrades never left me without a system (I use Debian/testing, but I am careful with what to upgrade).
To use Linux, you shall first accept that an important part of your computer solution is _yourself_. No, this does not mean that you have to be a programmer. It means only that standard linux software[up to now] will not attempt (and badly fail) to think for you. But it will perform faultlessy a miriad of boring and repetitive tasks, leaving you the time to think.
A new kind of lie introduced by the technology era.