Yeah, but using Mediawiki for read-only content is not the smartest thing to do, it prohibits caching. If Mediawiki would allow proxies to cache their content (maybe there is a plugin, but Wikipedia doesn't allow it either), a lot of trouble would go away. And does Wikileaks need uncached requests? No.
You are thinking too small. Any package that has submodules/extensions has the same problem. Such software typically created and uses their own extension system. Some examples: Firefox extensions, Apache+PHP applications (wordpress), emacs, claws mail extension... Virtually any package that can act as a platform. Just take a look in your package manager.
The current idea is to push everything into the repo too. Good because it is reviewed and checked twice; bad as it is incomplete and inconsistent (half is over the package manager, half over another tool [e.g. cpan]).
One solution would be to make the package manager pluggable, so it can install subpackages sanely, and can access the repo of the other party.
We need old-fashioned journalists that report facts with verifiable sources. Not the cheap, Web 3.0, crowdsourced crap.
It has to be rewarding to do and have 'old-fashioned journalists'. Right now it isn't, prolly because of the 'ooh-shiny' mentality, and a 30 seconds attention timespan and the complexity of some topics is hindering.
There is also no scale for depth, and another journalist can probably repost an executive summary of your investigation. Do you get kudos from the journalist community or editors? Probably no one cares, except if you uncover the story of the century (unlikely).
Why should one then, as a journalist, do a serious investigation, except for ones own honesty?
Not sure how 7 is now, but its not like the bashing against DRM/Trusted Computing/TCPA was not without reason, and might have worked. Also, since that time, complaining made music download websites turn their back to DRM.
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free > software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement > is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting > proprietary software as legitimate.
I understand your position. I think you might not understand the position of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.
Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position that GNOME should "avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate".
The way I see it is that most members want GNOME to stay out of that philosophic discussion. Although GNOME usually advises to "work upstream" and to "do things opensource when possible, as much as possible". This is just a personal point of view, of course.
You, as one of the key FSF people, appear to be keen[1] on enforcing a strict policy on how GNU's member-projects should behave. So...
I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.
> I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.
I think it's clear that I disagree. Philosophically.
> There are many ways to implement such a rule, of which "block the > whole blog" is about the toughest one we might consider. I'd suggest > rather to try a mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.
Let's first get a consensus from our members on GNOME's status as being or not being a well-behaving GNU project, or having its own identity.
Also, the ordering of comments. Sites where the most recent comments come first encourage repetition, circling around the same arguments and bad quality, whereas a thread you can follow allows picking up an existing conversation on top of arguments already made.
All mozilla extensions on addons.mozilla.org go through a review process. Stuff might slip through, but its unlikely that unwanted behaviour in popular addons isn't noticed. The addons are distributed over SSL.
With webmail combining mail into the web, the web became the Internet. With increasing importance of online/cloud/Live applications and ChromeOS combining applications into the web, the OS becomes just the medium of accessing the Internet. With Google being the starting point for many people to do their Internet stuff, and Google incorporating more and more steps of that clickpath -- you don't have to leave google for shopping, mail, document editing, site-specific searches, weather information, stock information,... --, other websites are left without clicks.
Is Google trying to become the Web? Google is leveraging their, not monopoly, but well-established position.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
By your theory it would be easy for another free operating system to come along with a binary drivers interface, and outperform Linux' market share easily, since Linux can not be used legally with binary drivers.
Also, Linus doesn't dislike the GPLv3, his opinion is just that GPLv2 is awesome. With more and more non-geek people installing, using and talking about Linux systems like Ubuntu, I don't think Linux is doing particularly bad right now. I'm also not sure where you get the CLI anger from, as I saw quite a steep decline in necessary CLIs in the last years (think Xorg).
The GUI building tools could be better in Linux, and Java should be better integrated. I'm also not sure which drivers you are referring to specifically.
MS Windows had Desktop search in betas before MacOS. But Apple released it quicker.
The question is also, can remove and replace the application that comes with the OS? (Here, the OS is actually a OS and a application bundle.) Does the package adhere to standards?
What do you want? On the one hand you complain that software is included, on the other it is doesn't meet your expectations. Doesn't exactly that create a market for Notepad++? Should Microsoft release a install that you can't use for anything? No of course not. People want and need a browser, a email program, a notepad and a calculator. They actually paid for getting it.
Bad 3rd party hardware drivers are the cause of 99% of Windows Bluescreens.
And...
I don't understand your statement that the kernel should not contain drivers.
How do you consolidate these two thoughts in your brain?
As: Drivers should be managed by kernel people (which they do). If you wanted to move all drivers outside the (now micro-)kernel, you should have made that point clear.
The grandparent is right: Linux needs a standard and solid driver interface. Not only do hardware makers have to jump the hurdle of "Linux has very few users", the kernel developers have decided to throw in a whole mess of new hurdles which make Linux driver development *harder* than for commercial OSes.
They also say: "We have repeatedly found [Binary modules] to be detrimental to Linux users, businesses, and the greater Linux ecosystem. Such modules negate the openness, stability, flexibility, and maintainability of the Linux development model." https://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/publications/kernel-driver-statement
So, you start out behind because you don't have a huge user base, and you set yourself further behind because it's harder to write the driver.
Additionally, if you put the necessary scaffolding in place, you could create a system where no drivers run in the kernel, and thus no drivers are able to blue-screen the computer. BeOS did this in, what, 1994? Surely Linux can do it in 2009. Heck, Windows 7 is almost at that goal.
There are a lot of markets Linux can succeed in without addressing this-- ereaders, cellphones, etc-- but on the desktop? This should be priority one.
You can come up with proofs of concept for a lot of things, but the value of Linux lies in its code maintainance. Citing dead operating systems isn't helping. I'd say kernel panics are extremely rare.
Dude, if you don't like the system/way of Linux/GNU/GPLv2, base your RetailOS on the new Minix or ReactOS or something else. But # of users -> # of developers -> # of code iterations/applications/drivers -> # of users ->...
It could also lessen the life of the computer. A computer that is shutdown at night would likely last longer than one crunching numbers every night.
This is completely false and has been proven with reams of empirical data. Keeping a computer running 24/7 give a longer useful lifetime than shutting a computer down every night.
But is this longer lifetime including or excluding the nighttime? How much do the power costs weigh into the prize of a new computer?
It would be enough and everyone would be happy about it if only one distribution would focus on this market. "Certified for Retailinux", is enough.
Bad 3rd party hardware drivers are the cause of 99% of Windows Bluescreens.
As a company, getting your driver into Linux should be pretty simple. It is a better distribution method. For printers: In gnome, the install driver for Printers is easily found. A series of screenshots, and the necessary ppd file can be on a CD, no one is stopping anyone from doing that.
I've seen some boxes with 'Works with Linux' and sometimes some 2.6 version number. Maybe something like 'Works on Linux since 2007' would be more informative.
I don't understand your statement that the kernel should not contain drivers.
Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level. [...] After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it's time to try a different approach.
First step: Make GNUstep (1) look nice and (2) take care of usability. That is what you missed about KDE and GNOME: They plan and think about usability, a whole concept of a desktop, and nice look & feel. Otherwise you won't have users and thus no developers.
That sounds interesting. Wouldn't this also resolve the negative effect of static libraries to a large part (having multiple copies of the same code in memory)?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but using Mediawiki for read-only content is not the smartest thing to do, it prohibits caching.
If Mediawiki would allow proxies to cache their content (maybe there is a plugin, but Wikipedia doesn't allow it either), a lot of trouble would go away. And does Wikileaks need uncached requests? No.
I am not talking about (web) server-side improvements, I am talking about the problematic 'Cache-Control: private, s-maxage=0, max-age=0, must-revalidate' HTTP header. HTTP caching is so misunderstood. http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/#WHY
I don't like coffee, that's why Cygwin is a no-go for me. They should change that installer.
You are thinking too small. Any package that has submodules/extensions has the same problem. Such software typically created and uses their own extension system. ... Virtually any package that can act as a platform. Just take a look in your package manager.
Some examples: Firefox extensions, Apache+PHP applications (wordpress), emacs, claws mail extension
The current idea is to push everything into the repo too. Good because it is reviewed and checked twice; bad as it is incomplete and inconsistent (half is over the package manager, half over another tool [e.g. cpan]).
One solution would be to make the package manager pluggable, so it can install subpackages sanely, and can access the repo of the other party.
Irregardless, you're new word is stupid.
We need old-fashioned journalists that report facts with verifiable sources. Not the cheap, Web 3.0, crowdsourced crap.
It has to be rewarding to do and have 'old-fashioned journalists'. Right now it isn't, prolly because of the 'ooh-shiny' mentality, and a 30 seconds attention timespan and the complexity of some topics is hindering.
There is also no scale for depth, and another journalist can probably repost an executive summary of your investigation. Do you get kudos from the journalist community or editors? Probably no one cares, except if you uncover the story of the century (unlikely).
Why should one then, as a journalist, do a serious investigation, except for ones own honesty?
Suggest a system that rewards.
It seems everyone forgot the DRM and 'Trusted Computing' (aka distrust the user) introduced in Vista, one of the major criticisms (not look & feel).
You may recall this analysis: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html, (Schneier wrote something here: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows_1.html)
Not sure how 7 is now, but its not like the bashing against DRM/Trusted Computing/TCPA was not without reason, and might have worked. Also, since that time, complaining made music download websites turn their back to DRM.
No, the GNOME folks want to decide where they want to go. Puristic or non-puristic.
Philip Van Hoof
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:21:53 -0800
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free
> software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement
> is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting
> proprietary software as legitimate.
I understand your position. I think you might not understand the
position of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.
Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position that
GNOME should "avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate".
The way I see it is that most members want GNOME to stay out of that
philosophic discussion. Although GNOME usually advises to "work
upstream" and to "do things opensource when possible, as much as
possible". This is just a personal point of view, of course.
You, as one of the key FSF people, appear to be keen[1] on enforcing a ...
strict policy on how GNU's member-projects should behave. So
I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.
> I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.
I think it's clear that I disagree. Philosophically.
> There are many ways to implement such a rule, of which "block the
> whole blog" is about the toughest one we might consider. I'd suggest
> rather to try a mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.
Let's first get a consensus from our members on GNOME's status as being
or not being a well-behaving GNU project, or having its own identity.
Original thread, alternative link: http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg04068.html
Also, the ordering of comments. Sites where the most recent comments come first encourage repetition, circling around the same arguments and bad quality, whereas a thread you can follow allows picking up an existing conversation on top of arguments already made.
I've written a few worthless OSes myself. One of them actually gets used still. But I wrote it out of desperation, not as a business model.
Hey guys, get your pitchforks and torches! I think I found the guy who wrote Windows!
I was guessing Linus, but pitchforks and torches are still adequate. ;-)
Maybe we'll have MHz requirements for websites at some point.
All mozilla extensions on addons.mozilla.org go through a review process. Stuff might slip through, but its unlikely that unwanted behaviour in popular addons isn't noticed. The addons are distributed over SSL.
Simply deleting a file doesn't remove the bits from the drive.
Neither does overwriting it once, or burning the drive.
Also, contrary to popular believe, information in RAM can be restored after a shutdown for I think a month or so.
With webmail combining mail into the web, the web became the Internet. ... --, other websites are left without clicks.
With increasing importance of online/cloud/Live applications and ChromeOS combining applications into the web, the OS becomes just the medium of accessing the Internet.
With Google being the starting point for many people to do their Internet stuff, and Google incorporating more and more steps of that clickpath -- you don't have to leave google for shopping, mail, document editing, site-specific searches, weather information, stock information,
Is Google trying to become the Web? Google is leveraging their, not monopoly, but well-established position.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
By your theory it would be easy for another free operating system to come along with a binary drivers interface, and outperform Linux' market share easily, since Linux can not be used legally with binary drivers.
Also, Linus doesn't dislike the GPLv3, his opinion is just that GPLv2 is awesome. With more and more non-geek people installing, using and talking about Linux systems like Ubuntu, I don't think Linux is doing particularly bad right now. I'm also not sure where you get the CLI anger from, as I saw quite a steep decline in necessary CLIs in the last years (think Xorg).
The GUI building tools could be better in Linux, and Java should be better integrated. I'm also not sure which drivers you are referring to specifically.
This Unicode bug was fixed in Windows Vista and 7, so yes, really!
Maybe Windows will get a decent Window Manager at some point.
MS Windows had Desktop search in betas before MacOS. But Apple released it quicker.
The question is also, can remove and replace the application that comes with the OS? (Here, the OS is actually a OS and a application bundle.) Does the package adhere to standards?
What do you want? On the one hand you complain that software is included, on the other it is doesn't meet your expectations. Doesn't exactly that create a market for Notepad++?
Should Microsoft release a install that you can't use for anything? No of course not. People want and need a browser, a email program, a notepad and a calculator. They actually paid for getting it.
What else do you want to use on mobile devices? Frankly, I find IE unusable on e.g. an iPAQ.
Since most access of the Internet goes through mobile devices -- unless you are in the somewhat lagging-behind US -- I can see how Opera is up there.
Bad 3rd party hardware drivers are the cause of 99% of Windows Bluescreens.
And...
I don't understand your statement that the kernel should not contain drivers.
How do you consolidate these two thoughts in your brain?
As: Drivers should be managed by kernel people (which they do). If you wanted to move all drivers outside the (now micro-)kernel, you should have made that point clear.
The grandparent is right: Linux needs a standard and solid driver interface. Not only do hardware makers have to jump the hurdle of "Linux has very few users", the kernel developers have decided to throw in a whole mess of new hurdles which make Linux driver development *harder* than for commercial OSes.
That's just BS. It is answered by kernel developers several times: http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
They also say:
"We have repeatedly found [Binary modules] to be detrimental to Linux users, businesses, and the greater Linux ecosystem. Such modules negate the openness, stability, flexibility, and maintainability of the Linux development model."
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/publications/kernel-driver-statement
For getting a Linux driver, you do not have to spend money/time at all. http://lwn.net/Articles/219791/
So, you start out behind because you don't have a huge user base, and you set yourself further behind because it's harder to write the driver.
Additionally, if you put the necessary scaffolding in place, you could create a system where no drivers run in the kernel, and thus no drivers are able to blue-screen the computer. BeOS did this in, what, 1994? Surely Linux can do it in 2009. Heck, Windows 7 is almost at that goal.
There are a lot of markets Linux can succeed in without addressing this-- ereaders, cellphones, etc-- but on the desktop? This should be priority one.
You can come up with proofs of concept for a lot of things, but the value of Linux lies in its code maintainance. Citing dead operating systems isn't helping. I'd say kernel panics are extremely rare.
Dude, if you don't like the system/way of Linux/GNU/GPLv2, base your RetailOS on the new Minix or ReactOS or something else. ...
But # of users -> # of developers -> # of code iterations/applications/drivers -> # of users ->
It could also lessen the life of the computer. A computer that is shutdown at night would likely last longer than one crunching numbers every night.
This is completely false and has been proven with reams of empirical data. Keeping a computer running 24/7 give a longer useful lifetime than shutting a computer down every night.
But is this longer lifetime including or excluding the nighttime? How much do the power costs weigh into the prize of a new computer?
Several issues to think about:
It would be enough and everyone would be happy about it if only one distribution would focus on this market. "Certified for Retailinux", is enough.
Bad 3rd party hardware drivers are the cause of 99% of Windows Bluescreens.
As a company, getting your driver into Linux should be pretty simple. It is a better distribution method.
For printers:
In gnome, the install driver for Printers is easily found. A series of screenshots, and the necessary ppd file can be on a CD, no one is stopping anyone from doing that.
I've seen some boxes with 'Works with Linux' and sometimes some 2.6 version number. Maybe something like 'Works on Linux since 2007' would be more informative.
I don't understand your statement that the kernel should not contain drivers.
Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level. [...] After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it's time to try a different approach.
First step: Make GNUstep (1) look nice and (2) take care of usability. That is what you missed about KDE and GNOME: They plan and think about usability, a whole concept of a desktop, and nice look & feel.
Otherwise you won't have users and thus no developers.
That sounds interesting. Wouldn't this also resolve the negative effect of static libraries to a large part (having multiple copies of the same code in memory)?