if the NDA force them not to distribute some GPLed software, then it is a violation.
If the NDA is only related to some proprietary add-on software (like SuSE Yast2), or more generally to the way in which the distribution is assembled,
it is not (IMO) a violation. It may be a stupid move, but not illegal.
This is, I think, why FSF asked UL to disclose the terms of the NDA.
SuSE are not exactly huge supporters of the GPL, what with a non-Free installer and configuration tools.
SuSE also contributes greatly to several free software projects, XFree86 being one of them ( they persuaded Neomagic to release [first binary, then source] the driver for they card - so I enjoyed X on my laptop ).
But I also would like that, when I decide to switch from cool DextopX software to hyper-cool DesktopY software, DesktopY recognizes my old DesktopX settings (menu, background, MIME-types, icons...).
For that to happen, the various desktops should standardise on common infrastructures, at least for the shared functions.Done that, I don't care if each desktop has its own look-and-feel.
FreeDesktop.Org is helping going this way, but it looks like it is a long way.
You can't judge program performance from screenshots, but you can have a good idea of program UI design. And the article focus on UI design.
The thesis in the article is quite simple: if this is supposed to be used by first-time Linux users (and it is assumed that this is the case), then SuSE made an huge mistake.
Only, SuSE is not Mandrake (or windos XP). It aims at office desktop and server deployments (which can procure support contracts), as well as (or more) than at home desktops (which cannot). Both in case of servers and in case of office desktops, there are experienced people dedicated to install/deinstall applications. These people may appreciate a powerful tool that help them to cope with Linux complex system of packages.
The free software model _can_ produce R&D, because allows the free circulation of ideas. Anybody with a good idea can call for help, gather people that believes in the idea and start implementing it.
The fact that free software recycles old concept, I see it as a good thing. New ideas don't come out of the blue, you know: they are always the refactoring of old ideas, mixed and merged in different way. This is why the whole open-source concept makes sense, culturally if not economically.
But there are fields where R&D is too expensive and/or the free software people have not enough interest. These are the areas where closed source companies can still exploit, even if free software and open source becomes predominant (of which I'm not so sure).
Selling packaged free software might not be a viable marketing strategy. Or it might be viable, joined to other activities (support, subscriptions,...). We will see soon. I think in a couple of years at least another couple of the main distros will die. The surviving ones might be able to make a small profit with the enlarged market share.
But this is not the point. The GNU filosofy, as you says, may not bring money to software makers, but it brings value, thus indirectly money, to the software users. In a GNU world, software is never written to be sold. Is written to be used, firstly by the author (or by the company that hires the author to write the software) and then by the rest of the world. Will this happen? I don't know. For now, we seem to go toward a mixed model, with free software satisfying more and more the basic computer needs, so that software companies must keep trying to innovate and invent new things to attract customers (and this is a good thing, except for
software companies that used to rely too much on their market position).
There are other ways to get the distro CDs, for a fraction of the price of a boxed distro: get a copy from a friend of a friend of.... a friend. Or magazines, which comes with a new distro every
month.
The distro are actually bought mainly by:
people that don't know what Linux is, but just heard all the noise
people that want to support the distro
companies that want the official thing and maybe some support. But they'll bought one, two, three, maybe five. Surely not one per installation, as they must do with windows.
Sun has always seen Linux as a weapon against the penetration of Microsoft in the server market.
For them, Linux is a way to keep the servers running Unix, so that tomorrow they can be replaced by Sun boxes running Solaris.
But recently, IBM is starting to use Linux as a weapon against Sun on the high-end server market, and PC makers are eroding Sun low-end server market selling cheap Intel/Linux boxes.
I wouldn't be too surprised if Sun would start its own FUD campaign against Linux in the near future.
Sun is scared of Linux, because Intel/Linux is a thread for their overpriced boxes on low/medium range (and not many business actually need more than four CPUs for box).
And Sun has changed his attitude on software. E.g. you get a C compiler with the OS, but you don't get anymore the command-line debugger. In this way they hope to sell more copies of their Forte developer suite.
Anyway, the port system of *BSD refuses to compile
the trojaned source package because it checks the
MD5 (which comes from non-compromised source).
So the problem is for non-bsd users of OpenSSH, which downloaded and installed the source without bothering to check the MD5 (or having their system to check it for them).
Economic: This is a gooud reason, if you hare a business with money at risk, to use trusted source for your open source software, in change of a little of your money.
Do you think Sun is worried about losing market share to Apple?
The real treath to SUN on the workstation side is Intel/Linux, not Apple. In my field of work (aereospace) I see more and more Linux PC used in places where years ago you had to buy a Sun/IBM/Digital/HP workstation.
I think that if you do a 'default setup' on a test account and then remote-copy all the setup-generated files on each of your users home directory,open office will assume that a setup is done and will just start, whithout running the setup program.
I never tried it, but it sounds logical.
(Do users have home directory in Winxx[xx]? I hope so.)
I believe this is the most logical option. If you are writing a GUI app then you should use as first option the OS native widgets. If you are writing a multi-os GUI app then use a wrapper for the GUI. Thats the magic about Object Oriented Programming.
I tend to agree with you. However, look at Java : they first tried this approach with AWT: platform-independed API, platform-dependent implementation.
AWT was a failure, so much that SUN had to buy Swing from an independent software house and incorporate it in Java 1.2 platform.
I'm not sure why AWT was a failure. To me, the approach used is still the best. I tend to blame more the rushed implementation of AWT in Java 1.0, rather than the approach. But it could be that there is some drawback I'm not aware of.
There _is_ a tradition of comic sci fi, you know. Sheckley is the first name that comes to my mind, but there are others (if only my memory would work...). Ah, yes. I remenber a book of very nice short novels from R.A. Lafferty.
Of course it has never been funny-ha-ha. It is more a matter of funny-smile, sometime thoughtful, sometime sarcastic, often surreal.
Comic sci-fi and fantasy is almost the only sort of sci-fi and fantasy I read these days (well, apart from classics).
I can't suggest new paradigms, but I think that combining various good ideas apperared in different open-source gui, it would be possible to come out with a more productive environment then the standard Windows/Mac/Gnome/KDE
To summarise what I posted in another thread:
Non-overlapping windows, arranged similar to how emacs arrange buffers
Active desktop acting as a file manager
Graphical and CLI shells combined in a single interface
My (not-so-much) wild GUI ideas
on
GUIs for Everyone
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Ok. This is the right excuse to throw out some of them:
No more overlapping windows. I found that a lot of my time is wasted resizing,moving,shading, opening,closing window. There shall be a better way. I know the experiments with non-conventional window management techniques, like ion or PWM or that other tabbed window manager... they are not there yet.I'd like to see something which implements emacs window management. In one-buffer mode, every windows take the full screen. For special needs like drag and drop or multi-windows apps like Gimp or Glade, you can split the screen orizzontally or vertically and have one windows on each half, allowing users to resize the two halfs moving the separation bar.Maybe window belonging to the same class may share the same screen area and auto-arranged to look a feel like a MDI. All windows are resized to take all the space they can, unless they are marked non-resizable (like toolbars) or the user sets its own preferences.Dialogs always-on-top and centered wrt their application.
An active desktop background, which actually works as a full-screen, always-on-back file-manager window. It always show your current working directory..Able to split in a multiple-direcory view. With the capability to specialize background (and other user preferences) on a per-directory basis.I know, it looks a little like StarOffice 5.x desktop. But it wasn't a bad idea, it was only half-cooked: too simple and rigid for a desktop, too overwelming for an app main window.
On the bottom quarter (or less) a shrinkable command line or mini-terminal, which is kept in sync and can interact with the graphical part, the way the mini-buffer of ROX Filer works (or the embedded Terminal in Konqueror).
As you see, no brand new ideas. But I'd love to see them put all togheter, even oly to discover that it was a giant mistake. Maybe one day I'll try it.
If that's the case then they should be a charity. People who work for charities get paid, you know?
So, in our view all artisans (tubists, mechanicians, carpenters), free-lance professionals (engineers, writers), small shop owners etc should either behave as corporations (i.e. maximise profits, not caring for customers) or become a charity ? Because they do something useful (in theory) and make a living out of it.
Maybe you're right. But in my view of the world (a little idealistic, maybe) there are also people which just want what to get from their work a decent living, and don't care about getting rich.
Slashdot Mirror
If the NDA is only related to some proprietary add-on software (like SuSE Yast2), or more generally to the way in which the distribution is assembled, it is not (IMO) a violation. It may be a stupid move, but not illegal.
This is, I think, why FSF asked UL to disclose the terms of the NDA.
SuSE also contributes greatly to several free software projects, XFree86 being one of them ( they persuaded Neomagic to release [first binary, then source] the driver for they card - so I enjoyed X on my laptop ).
But I also would like that, when I decide to switch from cool DextopX software to hyper-cool DesktopY software, DesktopY recognizes my old DesktopX settings (menu, background, MIME-types, icons ...).
For that to happen, the various desktops should standardise on common infrastructures, at least for the shared functions.Done that, I don't care if each desktop has its own look-and-feel.
FreeDesktop.Org is helping going this way, but it looks like it is a long way.
You can't judge program performance from screenshots, but you can have a good idea of program UI design. And the article focus on UI design.
The thesis in the article is quite simple: if this is supposed to be used by first-time Linux users (and it is assumed that this is the case), then SuSE made an huge mistake.
Only, SuSE is not Mandrake (or windos XP). It aims at office desktop and server deployments (which can procure support contracts), as well as (or more) than at home desktops (which cannot). Both in case of servers and in case of office desktops, there are experienced people dedicated to install/deinstall applications. These people may appreciate a powerful tool that help them to cope with Linux complex system of packages.
I've seen it, also around 10 years ago, and it was fantastic. :-)
The free software model _can_ produce R&D, because allows the free circulation of ideas. Anybody with a good idea can call for help, gather people that believes in the idea and start implementing it.
The fact that free software recycles old concept, I see it as a good thing. New ideas don't come out of the blue, you know: they are always the refactoring of old ideas, mixed and merged in different way. This is why the whole open-source concept makes sense, culturally if not economically.
But there are fields where R&D is too expensive and/or the free software people have not enough interest. These are the areas where closed source companies can still exploit, even if free software and open source becomes predominant (of which I'm not so sure).
Wouldn't you pay for a newspaper worth reading or a TV news worth listening at? Instead of listening and reading all today ad-driven crap?
But this is not the point. The GNU filosofy, as you says, may not bring money to software makers, but it brings value, thus indirectly money, to the software users.
In a GNU world, software is never written to be sold. Is written to be used, firstly by the author (or by the company that hires the author to write the software) and then by the rest of the world.
Will this happen? I don't know. For now, we seem to go toward a mixed model, with free software satisfying more and more the basic computer needs, so that software companies must keep trying to innovate and invent new things to attract customers (and this is a good thing, except for software companies that used to rely too much on their market position).
The distro are actually bought mainly by:
For them, Linux is a way to keep the servers running Unix, so that tomorrow they can be replaced by Sun boxes running Solaris.
But recently, IBM is starting to use Linux as a weapon against Sun on the high-end server market,
and PC makers are eroding Sun low-end server market selling cheap Intel/Linux boxes.
I wouldn't be too surprised if Sun would start its own FUD campaign against Linux in the near future.
And Sun has changed his attitude on software. E.g. you get a C compiler with the OS, but you don't get anymore the command-line debugger. In this way they hope to sell more copies of their Forte developer suite.
You don't try to sell a product to the people that already bought it. You go and stamp your ad on the window of your competitor's shop.
Bux fixes _are_ important, as you'll discover when a nasty bug bites you. This is why there is a stable branch: to fix bugs.
So the problem is for non-bsd users of OpenSSH, which downloaded and installed the source without bothering to check the MD5 (or having their system to check it for them).
bitchX, also, as another poster pointed out.
I think that after that, they are going to ask digital signature by any of the upstream mantainers.
So, this may turn in a good thing ... if it didn't make too much damage.
Oh, and just for karma: this shows once more that security is a process more than a product.
The real treath to SUN on the workstation side is Intel/Linux, not Apple. In my field of work (aereospace) I see more and more Linux PC used in places where years ago you had to buy a Sun/IBM/Digital/HP workstation.
I never tried it, but it sounds logical.
(Do users have home directory in Winxx[xx]? I hope so.)
I tend to agree with you. However, look at Java : they first tried this approach with AWT: platform-independed API, platform-dependent implementation. AWT was a failure, so much that SUN had to buy Swing from an independent software house and incorporate it in Java 1.2 platform.
I'm not sure why AWT was a failure. To me, the approach used is still the best. I tend to blame more the rushed implementation of AWT in Java 1.0, rather than the approach. But it could be that there is some drawback I'm not aware of.
There _is_ a tradition of comic sci fi, you know. Sheckley is the first name that comes to my mind, but there are others (if only my memory would work ...). Ah, yes. I remenber a book of very nice short novels from R.A. Lafferty.
Of course it has never been funny-ha-ha. It is more a matter of funny-smile, sometime thoughtful, sometime sarcastic, often surreal.
Comic sci-fi and fantasy is almost the only sort of sci-fi and fantasy I read these days (well, apart from classics).
To summarise what I posted in another thread:
- No more overlapping windows. I found that a lot of my time is wasted resizing,moving,shading, opening,closing window. There shall be a better way. I know the experiments with non-conventional window management techniques, like ion or PWM or that other tabbed window manager
... they are not there yet.I'd like to see something which implements emacs window management. In one-buffer mode, every windows take the full screen. For special needs like drag and drop or multi-windows apps like Gimp or Glade, you can split the screen orizzontally or vertically and have one windows on each half, allowing users to resize the two halfs moving the separation bar.Maybe window belonging to the same class may share the same screen area and auto-arranged to look a feel like a MDI. All windows are resized to take all the space they can, unless they are marked non-resizable (like toolbars) or the user sets its own preferences.Dialogs always-on-top and centered wrt their application. - An active desktop background, which actually works as a full-screen, always-on-back file-manager window. It always show your current working directory..Able to split in a multiple-direcory view. With the capability to specialize background (and other user preferences) on a per-directory basis.I know, it looks a little like StarOffice 5.x desktop. But it wasn't a bad idea, it was only half-cooked: too simple and rigid for a desktop, too overwelming for an app main window.
- On the bottom quarter (or less) a shrinkable command line or mini-terminal, which is kept in sync and can interact with the graphical part, the way the mini-buffer of ROX Filer works (or the embedded Terminal in Konqueror).
As you see, no brand new ideas. But I'd love to see them put all togheter, even oly to discover that it was a giant mistake. Maybe one day I'll try it.So, in our view all artisans (tubists, mechanicians, carpenters), free-lance professionals (engineers, writers), small shop owners etc should either behave as corporations (i.e. maximise profits, not caring for customers) or become a charity ? Because they do something useful (in theory) and make a living out of it.
Maybe you're right. But in my view of the world (a little idealistic, maybe) there are also people which just want what to get from their work a decent living, and don't care about getting rich.