... and I read TLoR several years ago. Anyway, the Frodo I have seen in ads as previews is quite different from the middle-class all-common-sense Mr. Baggings of the book.
It looks much more like the heroes of the Terry Brooks' The Sword of Sahannara'.
If you love and care about important stuff like this, suck it up, and spring for the 33 fucking cents/day it might cost you.
Uhm, not exactly. Ximian is not a charity non-for-profit organisation, like FSF or SPI. They are a _company_. That is they choose to _sell_ a _product_.
This mean that the correct answer to any proposition from them is : if I think it is worth the money, I pay for it. Otherwhise, I don't.
I know that ximian is paying for some of the Gnome development. But if they want money to support that, they have choosen the wrong way.
I _do_ agree about not bitching about. It's nothing bad. It's just business. The market will be the judge.
Does RMS still consider Ximian 'the good guys' or are they 'evil' now that Ximian introduces subscription charges...
No. FSF also sell CDs with GNU software on it ( a much saner practice IMO than selling 'privileged bandwidth'). You can do the same, provided you do not impose restriction on use/modification/copy of what you sell [and Ximian do not add restriction].
... and sells proprietary software?
Yes. Real politik may prevent him from saying it too loud [maybe he did and I did not hear], but I think this is one of the reason why he wanted to enter in the Gnome Foundation.
I don't understand. Why does Ximian need to charge money for bandwidth and Debian not? Are their operating costs a lot higher?
They are: nobody is mirroring Ximian (not for free, at least) the way is done for Debian.
Also, with the money you give them, Ximian has to pay for people developing and packaging the software, not only bandwidth. This is also work that Debian volunteers do for free.
I just don't feel philanthropy towards a for-profit business.
Their not asking your charity. They are trying to set-up a business model, compatible with free software ideas. Definively NOT an easy task.
I think that however they should charge the actual download of the packages, rather than a monthly fee for the _possibility_ of doing it.
Yep. My point is that if you are going to 'explain' a unix file system to a common user, you need first to rationalise the file system, removing some 'historical' but non-sensical convention from it.
Same goes for the command line : move instead of mv, copy instead of cp. And 'move' and 'rename' are logically different, even if they end up in the same result. [ I know, it looks like DOS, but that is].
And don't tell me anbout aliases, now:-)
Uhm... I guess I agree that the best methaphor for a computer is... a computer.
But I still think that the 'Home' methaphor may be a good choice for home computers targeted at non technical people. The important thing is that it should be flexible enough to let people build their own house rather than live in a rent apartment with unpersonal furniture. And to have a way to escape the methaphor, for when it really breaks.
Never heard of it, before. But yes, the picture the other poster pointed to me is not far from what I imagined (a bit less childish, maybe). Which shows that anybody has good ideas. Or that I got the Microsoft bug:-).
Interesting. What happened to it ?
I have seen computer newbies (especially adult ones) scared by the supposedly user-friendly interface of Win95/98. I'd bet someting like that would have had a better impact on them.
One thing that can be more comfy than your own desktop is your own home. So, why don't turn a computer in a home?
Think of it : directories could be bookshelves, and generic files books. Music files could be records. You could browse the web looking out of the window. And so on.
You could have different rooms, equivalent of today workspaces: one could organize one room for play, one for office, etc... You can decorate floor, ceiling and walls as you like, and put in them bookshelves (symlink to directories) or appliances (applications or applets with a look that recalls their function).To make system administration, you go to the basement:-). [Currently missing a clean metaphor for removable media, though].
Application installers could even create their own rooms, in the same way they create folders now.
This environment should be 3d : not the full 3d stuff, since you don't need to loose time walking from one place to another. But enough 3d to look real. And to benefit of spacial arrangement as a way to priopritize symbols : the more important icons are close and big; others are more distant and smaller. A single mouse click could move you in another position, changing the perspective.
When running a today 2d app, you get a full screen 2d view (90% of non technical users I have seen rarely uses more than a window per time). Iconising the window, or clicking on a navig bar button, you are back in your 3d homey environment.
Microsoft must love having GNU/Linux as the only serious competitor.
GNU/Linux is not a [commercial] competitor of Microsoft. Mandrake, Caldera, Red-Hat are. They sell packaged open-source software for money, so they shall be worried not to release shitty packages, if they want to keep their customers.
GNU/Linux is a _technical_ competitor of Windows...but this is another story.
Uhm. There are a few projects that do not provide anymore any pre-built packages. Only source code. It may suck to some users, but I think this is the way to go (note that I am an user, not a developer: I'm able to compile my tarballs, but I enjoy pre-built binaries like everybody else).
Maybe it is time to introduce some specialisation in the open source world: developers write code; distributions build packages.If distribution packages suck (as they sometime do), users can complain with them (after all, they get [not much] payed for it). Better yet, they can create volunteer-based user support sites that distributes better packages for their favorite apps (Debian was born for similar reasons, IIRC).
I prefer that developers spend their time fixing bugs and implementing features, rather than building RPMs for me (as a figure of speach: I use Debian and I have got others which build packages for me:-).
Nobody has the freedom to do things that are harmful to others.
Not so, IMO. Exactly the contrary. Every freedom granted to individuals implies the possibility to harm other peoples.
Take the property right, and the way everybody (including you and me) are using it to prevent other people from living decent lives ( and not only in third world country, but in our own civilised cities ).
In some case, we have laws to explicitily forbid 'bad uses' of freedom. In many others, we don't (And we shouldn't).
I see power and freedom as two sides of the same coin. You can convert power in freedom and vice versa. I can give you freedom by giving up some of my power. This, in turn, empowers you: giving you freedom, I transferred power from me to you.
This is actually what free software developers do, and it is a Good Thing. But it has to be a free choice. Cannot be enforced, either by law nor by cultural ostracism.
I completely reject the concept that I have to show anything I invent to ANYONE. Ultimately I always have the right and ability to destroy any writings, calculations or code that I author before I show it to anyone.
I guess so. But you should recognize that your ideas and inventions were not born out of blue sky. They were based on ideas that other people had _and_ published ( you _did_ go to school, and read books, and talked with others, didn't you ?).
I _do_ grant to you the power to keep your inventions for yourself. But I also recognize that if anybody did that, our society would have zero progress.
In the field of software, particularly, we are dangerously approaching this extreme limit. Therefore, I am grateful to any developer which gives up his power to give to me (and other users) more freedom.
My impression, as a linux user, is that with 2.4 we (well...they) have moved to a three stage development cycle:
alpha : the development tree
beta : developers realise that they have done all the tests they could and call 'stable' the development tree. More users starts using the new kernel (users which would not have used a 'development' release). New bug and problems come out; some of them may not be fixable with small patches, but may require some strong re-enginering.
final : the developers and beta users are satisfied with the current performances of the stable kernel ( and maybe also tired of working on it;^>). The stable kernel is given to the maitainers. A new development kernel begins.
This is not a bad model. Maybe the kernel is getting too big for the two-stage model. And maybe too many people are using Linux for critical business, starving the 'development' releases of the testers it needs to get production quality.
My current project (areoeospace ad-hoc s/w development) currently uses 5 languages:
C++ for core modules
Java for portable libraries and GUIS
PHP for some Web front-end
Perl in form of an off-the-net free software which does mirroing (thanks to the author of it, BTW).
Python in form of a quickly assembled propotype (to be refined, but it will stay Python) when my customer told me: why don't you do... (initial reqs did not call for it, but this is much an impromptu project).
And yes, if I leave my company would have problems with Perl and Python modules (and lesser problems with PHP, also). But in both chase it was matter of $$$ ( in terms of developer time) and I still think I've made the right decision. BTW, Python can be learned on the flight, so my only worry is the perl program (which anyway works fine and probably wont be ever touched).
Right. I said almost same thing in a thread about file systems a couple of days ago (my idea was that the directory should coreespond to query on files properties and be automatically upgrated by the system).
FYI, I was pointed to an experimental file system based on MySQL engine. Wich may be an overkill. What we need is not to store file system _contents _in a database(like), but only the file system _indexes_ (i.e the set of directory tables).
Pity none of us is a kernel developer (or you are?).
You can see my 'query directories' as specialised views of the filesystem ( exactly like you can define a virtual table which is a 'view' on the actual database contents ).
I relalize that not all the semantic of the file-system may apply: for instance moving a file in a directory with particular attributes does not make sense ( well, unless you make it means that the file gets the attributes of the directory... which is interesting but a bit weird).
As far as weird goes, there is already something quite weird in the Unix filesystems: the hard links, which already allows a file to be in more than one directory.
Explanation : I am of two minds abouth everithing, so I can never decide how to organize my files, i.e. for category (like executables, libraries, html, music ) or for products (like gnome, kde,
MyPerferredApp ). So I want to do both.
I want a filesystem in which you can define directories by query of file attributes : e.g.:
mkdir ~/gnome_bin --query -type=executable -package=gnome
And then the system keeps update my directory, and I can handle it with standard filesystem tools.
I know that it isn't easy : that is why I'm aksing it as a cristmas gift.
I'm not fully positive (I overheard them just two or three times) but I sort of remember that initially the commercial ended with something like (translating to english):
A : "what is Linux?"
B : "it makes you save money"
Now it says:
A : "what is a server?"
B : "it makes you save money"
Can anybody confirm/deny that ?
(BTW this sort of 'ads fixing' seems to be a standard practice: I've seen it happen lots of time. They sort of analyse people reaction and 'fine tune' the ad accordingly)
I'd wager this memo was intentionally "leaked" to have a demoralizing effect on the Linux community
I have alway wandered if also Vallopillil's halloween memo was intentionally leaked. Wasn't that the time that Microsoft had disperate need to show to DepOfJustice that they stll _had_ some competitions?
For the las several years Linux stole from Microsoft many customers that wanted to move out from RISC/Unix solutions to Intel commodities PC.
Now they are forced to offer discounts to win companies over Linux ( even though I don't doubt they plan to get back the discount money as soon as the curtomers are hooked).
Loosing money is annoying for _any_ company.
I bet that also in SUN and IBM there were (are?) people annoyed by Linux growing popularity.
The memo says nothing new, actually. Companies are shifting from expensive proprietary platform (SUN, HP, IBM) to commodity PC, which now have enough horsepower for most of the common tasks tasks low-middle servers are purchased for.
Without Linux, the 100% of these shifters would have gone in the arms of Microsoft. With Linux, they have to fight harder to get some of them.
All this was already true two/three years ago, but now Linux is more recognized, also thanks to some advertising effort mainly sponsorised by IBM, and PHBs don't frown (much) anymore when their techs are proposing Linux-based solutions.
This is why Linux it is considered _the_ threat for MS on the server market.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks much more like the heroes of the Terry Brooks' The Sword of Sahannara'.
Uhm, not exactly. Ximian is not a charity non-for-profit organisation, like FSF or SPI. They are a _company_. That is they choose to _sell_ a _product_.
This mean that the correct answer to any proposition from them is : if I think it is worth the money, I pay for it. Otherwhise, I don't.
I know that ximian is paying for some of the Gnome development. But if they want money to support that, they have choosen the wrong way.
I _do_ agree about not bitching about. It's nothing bad. It's just business. The market will be the judge.
In case you are lazy:
Does RMS still consider Ximian 'the good guys' or are they 'evil' now that Ximian introduces subscription charges ...
No. FSF also sell CDs with GNU software on it ( a much saner practice IMO than selling 'privileged bandwidth'). You can do the same, provided you do not impose restriction on use/modification/copy of what you sell [and Ximian do not add restriction].
Yes. Real politik may prevent him from saying it too loud [maybe he did and I did not hear], but I think this is one of the reason why he wanted to enter in the Gnome Foundation.
BTW, all these are also reasons why Microsoft is the richest software company in the world, and Ximian is striving to survive
They are: nobody is mirroring Ximian (not for free, at least) the way is done for Debian.
Also, with the money you give them, Ximian has to pay for people developing and packaging the software, not only bandwidth. This is also work that Debian volunteers do for free.
I just don't feel philanthropy towards a for-profit business.
Their not asking your charity. They are trying to set-up a business model, compatible with free software ideas. Definively NOT an easy task.
I think that however they should charge the actual download of the packages, rather than a monthly fee for the _possibility_ of doing it.
Same goes for the command line : move instead of mv, copy instead of cp. And 'move' and 'rename' are logically different, even if they end up in the same result. [ I know, it looks like DOS, but that is]. :-)
And don't tell me anbout aliases, now
But I still think that the 'Home' methaphor may be a good choice for home computers targeted at non technical people. The important thing is that it should be flexible enough to let people build their own house rather than live in a rent apartment with unpersonal furniture. And to have a way to escape the methaphor, for when it really breaks.
Never heard of it, before. But yes, the picture the other poster pointed to me is not far from what I imagined (a bit less childish, maybe). Which shows that anybody has good ideas. Or that I got the Microsoft bug :-).
Interesting. What happened to it ?
I have seen computer newbies (especially adult ones) scared by the supposedly user-friendly interface of Win95/98. I'd bet someting like that would have had a better impact on them.
Ok. But then you have to push hard-core unixers in giving more common-sense names to file and directories :-). Like :
/configuration instead of /etc
/applications instead of /usr
-
-
- a 'preferences' directory under ~, instead of a miriad of . files.
Think of it : directories could be bookshelves, and generic files books. Music files could be records. You could browse the web looking out of the window. And so on.
You could have different rooms, equivalent of today workspaces: one could organize one room for play, one for office, etc ... You can decorate floor, ceiling and walls as you like, and put in them bookshelves (symlink to directories) or appliances (applications or applets with a look that recalls their function).To make system administration, you go to the basement :-). [Currently missing a clean metaphor for removable media, though].
Application installers could even create their own rooms, in the same way they create folders now.
This environment should be 3d : not the full 3d stuff, since you don't need to loose time walking from one place to another. But enough 3d to look real. And to benefit of spacial arrangement as a way to priopritize symbols : the more important icons are close and big; others are more distant and smaller. A single mouse click could move you in another position, changing the perspective.
When running a today 2d app, you get a full screen 2d view (90% of non technical users I have seen rarely uses more than a window per time). Iconising the window, or clicking on a navig bar button, you are back in your 3d homey environment.
GNU/Linux is not a [commercial] competitor of Microsoft. Mandrake, Caldera, Red-Hat are. They sell packaged open-source software for money, so they shall be worried not to release shitty packages, if they want to keep their customers.
GNU/Linux is a _technical_ competitor of Windows ...but this is another story.
Maybe it is time to introduce some specialisation in the open source world: developers write code; distributions build packages.If distribution packages suck (as they sometime do), users can complain with them (after all, they get [not much] payed for it). Better yet, they can create volunteer-based user support sites that distributes better packages for their favorite apps (Debian was born for similar reasons, IIRC). I prefer that developers spend their time fixing bugs and implementing features, rather than building RPMs for me (as a figure of speach: I use Debian and I have got others which build packages for me:-).
Maybe they just wanted to put windows ex-users at ease :^>.
Not so, IMO. Exactly the contrary. Every freedom granted to individuals implies the possibility to harm other peoples.
Take the property right, and the way everybody (including you and me) are using it to prevent other people from living decent lives ( and not only in third world country, but in our own civilised cities ).
In some case, we have laws to explicitily forbid 'bad uses' of freedom. In many others, we don't (And we shouldn't).
I see power and freedom as two sides of the same coin. You can convert power in freedom and vice versa. I can give you freedom by giving up some of my power. This, in turn, empowers you: giving you freedom, I transferred power from me to you.
This is actually what free software developers do, and it is a Good Thing. But it has to be a free choice. Cannot be enforced, either by law nor by cultural ostracism.
I guess so. But you should recognize that your ideas and inventions were not born out of blue sky. They were based on ideas that other people had _and_ published ( you _did_ go to school, and read books, and talked with others, didn't you ?).
I _do_ grant to you the power to keep your inventions for yourself. But I also recognize that if anybody did that, our society would have zero progress.
In the field of software, particularly, we are dangerously approaching this extreme limit. Therefore, I am grateful to any developer which gives up his power to give to me (and other users) more freedom.
- alpha : the development tree
- beta : developers realise that they have done all the tests they could and call 'stable' the development tree. More users starts using the new kernel (users which would not have used a 'development' release). New bug and problems come out; some of them may not be fixable with small patches, but may require some strong re-enginering.
- final : the developers and beta users are satisfied with the current performances of the stable kernel ( and maybe also tired of working on it
;^>). The stable kernel is given to the maitainers. A new development kernel begins.
This is not a bad model. Maybe the kernel is getting too big for the two-stage model. And maybe too many people are using Linux for critical business, starving the 'development' releases of the testers it needs to get production quality.- C++ for core modules
- Java for portable libraries and GUIS
- PHP for some Web front-end
- Perl in form of an off-the-net free software which does mirroing (thanks to the author of it, BTW).
- Python in form of a quickly assembled propotype (to be refined, but it will stay Python) when my customer told me: why don't you do
... (initial reqs did not call for it, but this is much an impromptu project).
And yes, if I leave my company would have problems with Perl and Python modules (and lesser problems with PHP, also). But in both chase it was matter of $$$ ( in terms of developer time) and I still think I've made the right decision. BTW, Python can be learned on the flight, so my only worry is the perl program (which anyway works fine and probably wont be ever touched).FYI, I was pointed to an experimental file system based on MySQL engine. Wich may be an overkill. What we need is not to store file system _contents _in a database(like), but only the file system _indexes_ (i.e the set of directory tables).
Pity none of us is a kernel developer (or you are?).
I relalize that not all the semantic of the file-system may apply: for instance moving a file in a directory with particular attributes does not make sense ( well, unless you make it means that the file gets the attributes of the directory ... which is interesting but a bit weird).
As far as weird goes, there is already something quite weird in the Unix filesystems: the hard links, which already allows a file to be in more than one directory.
Explanation : I am of two minds abouth everithing, so I can never decide how to organize my files, i.e. for category (like executables, libraries, html, music ) or for products (like gnome, kde, MyPerferredApp ). So I want to do both.
I want a filesystem in which you can define directories by query of file attributes : e.g. :
mkdir ~/gnome_bin --query -type=executable -package=gnome
And then the system keeps update my directory, and I can handle it with standard filesystem tools.
I know that it isn't easy : that is why I'm aksing it as a cristmas gift.
A : "what is Linux?"
B : "it makes you save money"
Now it says:
A : "what is a server?"
B : "it makes you save money"
Can anybody confirm/deny that ?
(BTW this sort of 'ads fixing' seems to be a standard practice: I've seen it happen lots of time. They sort of analyse people reaction and 'fine tune' the ad accordingly)
I have alway wandered if also Vallopillil's halloween memo was intentionally leaked. Wasn't that the time that Microsoft had disperate need to show to DepOfJustice that they stll _had_ some competitions?
Now they are forced to offer discounts to win companies over Linux ( even though I don't doubt they plan to get back the discount money as soon as the curtomers are hooked).
Loosing money is annoying for _any_ company.
I bet that also in SUN and IBM there were (are?) people annoyed by Linux growing popularity.
The memo says nothing new, actually. Companies are shifting from expensive proprietary platform (SUN, HP, IBM) to commodity PC, which now have enough horsepower for most of the common tasks tasks low-middle servers are purchased for.
Without Linux, the 100% of these shifters would have gone in the arms of Microsoft. With Linux, they have to fight harder to get some of them.
All this was already true two/three years ago, but now Linux is more recognized, also thanks to some advertising effort mainly sponsorised by IBM, and PHBs don't frown (much) anymore when their techs are proposing Linux-based solutions.
This is why Linux it is considered _the_ threat for MS on the server market.