I guess we are to assume you have coded something of gnome's level and better? Perhaps you have a few recommendations for them?
Did you pay for gnome? Did you contribute to their budget? Did you buy a cd or some other form of donation? Did you submit "detailed" bug reports? Did you create a suggestions list and emailed it to them? Did you contribute code snippets? Do you belong to "any" linux based organization to where you are actively involved with "any" of the above? Written any docs perhaps?
Personally, I have had little problem installing gnome via RPM or compiling it. (I prefer RPM's , I'm lazy)
rpm -Uvh --nodeps --force filename.rpm
(The quick way, does all rpm's in the directory based on installed packages) rpm -Uvh --freshen --nodeps --force *.rpm
Any of these has worked without failure for me and anyone I know.
granted, there are quite a few bugs with gnome its self and the applications, but considering its age, the amount of coding necessary, and what it does for the cost, I'm impressed. They also have the burden of being current and utilizing the latest GTK widjets set.
PS: Don't just complain, its allright to point out bugs and shortcommings, but just to sit there and rant with little to contribute in exchange for an organization of people gearing their efforts to provide "you" a potentially microsoft free , open sourced windowing environment for not a single dime out of your pocket, only demonstrates your absolute shortsightedness and lack of ambition.
I surely hope the linux community is not mostly comprised of this sort of attitude. Linux needs doers... The complaints are not in shortage.
For a while now there had been some predictions from myself and others as to what would MS do in the event of Linux either taking a significant portion of the MS Server market, or at least showing signs of such a potential.
What would their options be? (Brief look back) We all know that MS cannot afford to lose its dominance in the server realm at all, hence their attempt at destruction of Netscape. Why was Netscape so threatening to them? Perhaps because they saw the potential of the browser being the determining factor of the server technology (among other desktop applications) that gets implemented in companies. Perhaps they wanted to implement the "de-commoditizing" of protocols as the Halloween Documents suggests, thereby locking out or at least shifting the Linux/UX momentum into a catch-up mode instead of leading mode (Which it has been and still is on the Server side), if only to to be used as FUD tactics.
Having failed at this, what are their alternatives? How else can they claim this "un acquirable" software allowing them to once again control every aspect of the computer software technology?
Well, perhaps there is a way... Microsoft can get into and establish control of not only the linux operating system but also the direction of Linux through its application and development tools. None of which, has to be GPL'ed. The other thing to consider from a suit stand point (only because they are the driving force of the funding, which means marketing, which means public opinion shaping of the mass purchasers) is : What are the competing products of both MS's Office Application and Development tools on the Linux platform? How many people are already familiar with them? Even... how many Linux people would love to have an "Office Equivalent" and VB/VC++ Type Development System for Linux? I suspect its too many to take the "Well I won't run it stance just because its MicroSoft" stance, A very dangerous stance to take considering companies ~will~ invest in "functions" before stance. And if companies begin to invest big dollars towards a specific application, that, will determine need, hence determining the product.
Once Microsoft, manages to at least capture the Office market, and the development tools market on linux, a possible strategic move they could make is then issue an MS Linux, which of course would be geared towards being NT slave domain controllers and other nice things. Now comes the questions... Well Linux is GPL'ed.. and one could say "So What?".
Possible scenario: a) MS Makes Application Level Office and DEvelopment Tools for Linux and capture a "significant" Application market share. b) MS Makes MS Linux and distributes all of wonderful Microsoft only source code (unnecessary source code, but necessary for MS products to work) to include kernel modifications and "specialized" libraries back in the linux community. c) RedHat, Caldera, SuSE, Debian and other Linux distributions (whom are already working with far less capital than MS) are now successfully behind. Now they not only have to keep improving the kernel, GNU distros (which microsoft will automatically have), but as well as the new Microsoft source, probably very undocumented (perhaps even a special edition undebugged GNU version) and convoluted Bloat ware that everyone (or at least their market share) now wants in Linux. d) Now the marketing/FUD starts, "Why buy RedHat or Download RedHat" or which ever to run MS Application for Linux, when you can simply download a "Supported" MS Version of Linux ? and if you give MS 250 - $500.00 for a Book/Supported Version of Linux, you will get all of the beautiful proprietary application binaries to run on it too already configured. Further More... " Its MicroSoft " !... which should not be taken lightly. e) Microsoft can now potentially direct, dictate and govern the direction, applications and even "GPL'ed version of de-commoditized" protocols that get embedded within Linux and their interaction with NT/Windows 2000.
Am I paranoid? may be, but perhaps it would be safer to assume that MS is not just going to stand there and allow this Linux movement to sweep the server market from under their feet without a serious battle. Knowing this, it would be wise for everyone involved in linux to expect their intrusion, as they have always intruded in the past... through the "applications". They've done it to Novell (at one point owning more that 52% of the world's file server/network market). Look at them now. What does the Novell name mean now in comparison to NT? Did NT do this? Nope... the integration factor of Application to NT, marketing and MS branding did it.
It's my opinion that before we get all comfy and feeling safe under the GPL protection as the savior of all evil, that we serious start addressing desktop applications as a serious hole that could potentially destroy "your" linux as you know it in the commercial arena.
On this note, I would like to take this small opportunity (and I hope I totally wrong and surprised and beating Microsoft is as easy as everyone thinks it its) to name some of the biggest fools in the business.
Top 8 List of fools
1 - Borland / Inprise corporation. 2 - IBM Corporation 3 - Sun MicroSystems 4 - SCO ( Probably the Biggest fools in all business senses) 5 - Novell 6 - The KDE/Qt - 40 column terminal flamers 7 - The Non-Gui for text based EMACS for absolutely everything extremists. 8 - The Gimme everything fo' free mongers.
What makes these companies and select individuals fools.
Borland, left with Microsoft reject crumbs of a market, a company (Bor), who just happens to be responsible for main stream application development to custom enterprise level applications sit there and has not, till this day ported a single visual development tool for Linux (and Interbase Ain't good enuff). An untouched market, MS no where to be found, the whole market to themselves... and they are going to wait for Microsoft to take it over. Smart move people.
IBM, Where's the lotus suite? It should of been here 2 years ago. Installing Linux on IBM Systems is nice, but seeing they "have" the office suite to compete feature for feature and claim immediate market with, it seems a little odd that's there has not been and is no "solid" commitment on having this anytime soon. The idea is to have it "before" MS is there gobbling up the market and convice suits that the MS way is better rules once again, even on a different platform (which may change).
Sun, GNU Solaris? That's nice and dandy, but how' bout applications and network tools for linux that works and introduces a seamless integration between your very powerful servers to be administered by linux desktops, or should we all buy a sparc with linux on it? Invest real money , put real effort please...
SCO? Yeah, let me wait on skunkware to compile anything off the internet and don't you dare release a hint of source code to implement linux integration. Perhaps on day lxrun may "actually" run a linux program. Perhaps they should wait for someone to pay their $50,000.00 for their Xenix source code they so generously offer. May be I'll just buy a 5 user edition Unixware based Tarrentella Server for 4700.00 so I can run your SCO apps or my linux apps.
Novell? where's client 32 or equivalent so I do a simple thing like may be add a user to a netware box? PS I don't want to ~have~ to run Caldera and their client blows, its install on RedHat is upseting at best and is anything but serious... sorry, All credit due to Caldera, but no one saw serious Novell development help in development. 4.01 NDS for Linux? no thanks let's get up to date here. Java based, Server Side X only administration on netware 5.0 servers? no thanks. Netware's IP connectivity? no thanks. How about NetAdmin, pconsole, filer.. how about those? (PS thanks for telnet rconsole, at least that's a start). Porting IE as an administration tools for netware just says it all... I'm sure Microsoft will reward them heavily by letting them keep a small portion of the print server market. Get off you asses (Netware) and provide ~real~ integration and linux based management tools for netware NOW! I'll consider Border Manager later how's that?
The kde flamers / non-gui, At least get a glimpse at someone else's clue. No one is "removing" text based administration from linux, its always there, always will be, and don't install X. The difference between Linux and NT is "choice" and "Freedom", not X and Text Based.
The gimme fo' free mongers. What about an Economy? A business plan ? Bills? College Fees? Paying for food? Legal fees? Accountants fees? I suggest reading a book somewhere. Yes! Open/Free software is good and creates numerous opportunities, yes! Its what allowed Linux to get where it is today is largely due to the fact that its "free" and "open", (as much so open in my mind but any ways..), However, for corporate and enterprise level based apps to compete with MS level apps "require" corporate funding and people and small developing businesses to dedicate near 100% of their time in development, which means they need money period. Even RedHat's business model is based on "income" for them to survive, not how many people download the RH distro and banner advertisement. Sorry folks, part time development, splintered development in distros and spare time hobbyists may make a good kernel and base tools but they aren't gonna beat MS applications. Once we come to this firm realization and deal with the facts, perhaps we stand a chance when MS decides to engage in war, dirty tactics, blood bath marketing methods, fear mongering and corporate bribing (which we have have only seen the tip of the iceberg towards linux).
PS: the free version of star office or applix ware won't save thee and for some reason I doubt development will get any better on your promise to download it free to show them how much you care.
The visionaries - some late, but better than never,
Of course the Linux developers, kernel / apps / docs coders/writers
RedHat,Caldera., SusE and others... Troll-Tech The KDE Team The Gnome Team Computer Associates Slashdot Freshmeat etc.. etc.. Corel (out of complete lack of alternatives)
And the late, but better late than never.
Intuit Oracle Sysbase Informix And some others
Finishing thoughts,
For us to go around at this point, parading on how linux has and will destroy, or claim Micrsoft's market only shows complete ignorance, underestimation and flawed over optimistic theories about Microsoft. Linux needs, IBM, Sun, RedHat and other distros to put forth a "massive" effort towards the desktop apps hole which Microsoft will surely use to get in. This requires Money, Investment, the OSS and everyone else to work towards this goal "without splinter". And buy the damn cd from time to time! Especially if your not developing anything.
This will insure the growth and continuation of Linux both on the server side and desktop side, free and commercial and choice.
Intel invests in Linux based companies (RH, now VA).
Microsoft says little publicaly, only some internal second hand murmurs about their discontent...
Intel includes ID 64 bit serialization within PIII's and quotes... "The average person that can do whatever they want is the enemy"... hmm, isn't that what linux is all about?
Why would a company with that attitude invest in exactly a market that represents their classifications of an enemy...
What's next? Microsoft invests in Linux based companies? or may be, they simply can afford to do it directly.
Call me paranoid but this combination of events is strange. I'm all for big companies investing and spreading commercial dollars, as long as "we get to do whatever we want".
I'm very happy with my AMD and Alpha processors. Hopefully Compaq will capitalize on their new technology in the correct direction.
First of all I'm all for OSS and its proven its case, time and time again in regards to functionality and stability. Its certainly managed to keep large corporation in check with the new pressure of producing good code for a better price.
My problem is this "We don't need a new billionaire" or "you don't ~need~ to be a billionaire approach". This in its self ~is~ communism. First of all, we better thank those non government oriented corporations and individuals for ~being~ billionaires, which just so happens to layout the fundamental basis of economy which allows smaller companies to grow, for people to have decent jobs that they can feed their family with conformably.
Not everyone want's to be a government employee making the same salary or a salary geared towards popular acceptance.
You want to be a billionaire, then be one. I know its will circulate into my pocket and everyone's pocket... its the law of economy presuming we don't chase their investment into other countries due to tax punishment for having that money.
The patent laws have gone off the wall, this is true. But to say one cannot be awarded a patent based on the fact that they are an individual or haven't spent 50 years in development is complete non-sense and "is" communism. At least in America, this is a land of the "individual", not organizations, corporations and government. Let it be up to the individual what to do with his/her invention or patent. But I would agree that no one needs a patent on an ashtray umbrella.
In my opinion, Linus should have full rights to patent linux. Whether he wants to charge for it or give it away under a gnu license, that "his" business, not some community or a group of gimme free mongers.
You demand free stuff, then sit "your" ass down, code it "yourself" for free, and give it away. Don't tell "me" I can't patent/sell and commercialize my software.
I bought a toshiba a couple years ago and swore I would "never" buy one again. The thing never worked right, had bad block the 5th week I bought it and got no support from toshiba.
Buy Sony's VAIO, I just bought one, and linux supports "everything" in it. Modem, pcmcia, full screen text mode ~without~ svgatextmode(hard to find in any laptop).
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we are to assume you have coded something of gnome's level and better? Perhaps you have a few recommendations for them?
Did you pay for gnome?
Did you contribute to their budget?
Did you buy a cd or some other form of donation?
Did you submit "detailed" bug reports?
Did you create a suggestions list and emailed it to them?
Did you contribute code snippets?
Do you belong to "any" linux based organization to where you are actively involved with "any" of the above?
Written any docs perhaps?
Personally, I have had little problem installing gnome via RPM or compiling it. (I prefer RPM's , I'm lazy)
rpm -Uvh --nodeps --force filename.rpm
(The quick way, does all rpm's in the directory based on installed packages)
rpm -Uvh --freshen --nodeps --force *.rpm
Any of these has worked without failure for me and anyone I know.
granted, there are quite a few bugs with gnome its self and the applications, but considering its age, the amount of coding necessary, and what it does for the cost, I'm impressed. They also have the burden of being current and utilizing the latest GTK widjets set.
PS: Don't just complain, its allright to point out bugs and shortcommings, but just to sit there and rant with little to contribute in exchange for an organization of people gearing their efforts to provide "you" a potentially microsoft free , open sourced windowing environment for not a single dime out of your pocket, only demonstrates your absolute shortsightedness and lack of ambition.
I surely hope the linux community is not mostly comprised of this sort of attitude. Linux needs doers... The complaints are not in shortage.
For a while now there had been some predictions from myself and others as to what would MS do in the event of Linux either taking a significant portion of the MS Server market, or at least showing signs of such a potential.
... which should not be taken lightly.
.. etc..
What would their options be? (Brief look back) We all know that MS cannot afford to lose its dominance in the server realm at all, hence their attempt at destruction of Netscape. Why was Netscape so threatening to them? Perhaps because they saw the potential of the browser being the determining factor of the server technology (among other desktop applications) that gets implemented in companies. Perhaps they wanted to implement the "de-commoditizing" of protocols as the Halloween Documents suggests, thereby locking out or at least shifting the Linux/UX momentum into a catch-up mode instead of leading mode (Which it has been and still is on
the Server side), if only to to be used as FUD tactics.
Having failed at this, what are their alternatives? How else can they claim this "un acquirable" software allowing them to once again
control every aspect of the computer software technology?
Well, perhaps there is a way... Microsoft can get into and establish control of not only the linux operating system but also the direction of Linux through its application and development tools. None of which, has to be GPL'ed. The other thing to consider from a suit stand point (only because they are the driving force of the funding, which means marketing, which means public opinion shaping of the mass purchasers) is : What are the competing products of both MS's Office Application and Development tools on the Linux platform? How
many people are already familiar with them? Even... how many Linux people would love to have an "Office Equivalent" and VB/VC++ Type Development System for Linux? I suspect its too many to take the "Well I won't run it stance just because its MicroSoft" stance, A very dangerous stance to take considering companies ~will~ invest in "functions" before stance. And if companies begin to invest big dollars towards a specific application, that, will determine need, hence determining the product.
Once Microsoft, manages to at least capture the Office market, and the development tools market on linux, a possible strategic move they could make is then issue an MS Linux, which of course would be geared towards being NT slave domain controllers and other nice things. Now comes the questions... Well Linux is GPL'ed.. and one could say "So What?".
Possible scenario:
a) MS Makes Application Level Office and DEvelopment Tools for Linux and capture a "significant" Application market share.
b) MS Makes MS Linux and distributes all of wonderful Microsoft only source code (unnecessary source code, but necessary for MS products to work) to include kernel modifications and "specialized" libraries back in the linux community.
c) RedHat, Caldera, SuSE, Debian and other Linux distributions (whom are already working with far less capital than MS) are now successfully behind. Now they not only have to keep improving the kernel, GNU distros (which microsoft will automatically have), but as well as the new Microsoft source, probably very undocumented (perhaps even a special edition undebugged GNU version) and convoluted Bloat ware that everyone (or at least their market share) now wants in Linux.
d) Now the marketing/FUD starts, "Why buy RedHat or Download RedHat" or which ever to run MS Application for Linux, when you can simply download a "Supported" MS Version of Linux ? and if you give MS 250 - $500.00 for a Book/Supported Version of Linux, you will get all of the beautiful proprietary application binaries to run on it too already configured. Further More... " Its MicroSoft " !
e) Microsoft can now potentially direct, dictate and govern the direction, applications and even "GPL'ed version of de-commoditized" protocols that get embedded within Linux and their interaction with NT/Windows 2000.
Am I paranoid? may be, but perhaps it would be safer to assume that MS is not just going to stand there and allow this Linux movement to sweep the server market from under their feet without a serious battle. Knowing this, it would be wise for everyone involved in linux to expect their intrusion, as they have always intruded in the past... through the "applications". They've done it to Novell (at one point owning more that 52% of the world's file server/network market). Look at them now. What does the Novell name mean now in
comparison to NT? Did NT do this? Nope... the integration factor of Application to NT, marketing and MS branding did it.
It's my opinion that before we get all comfy and feeling safe under the GPL protection as the savior of all evil, that we serious start addressing desktop applications as a serious hole that could potentially destroy "your" linux as you know it in the commercial arena.
On this note, I would like to take this small opportunity (and I hope I totally wrong and surprised and beating Microsoft is as easy as
everyone thinks it its) to name some of the biggest fools in the business.
Top 8 List of fools
1 - Borland / Inprise corporation.
2 - IBM Corporation
3 - Sun MicroSystems
4 - SCO ( Probably the Biggest fools in all business senses)
5 - Novell
6 - The KDE/Qt - 40 column terminal flamers
7 - The Non-Gui for text based EMACS for absolutely everything extremists.
8 - The Gimme everything fo' free mongers.
What makes these companies and select individuals fools.
Borland, left with Microsoft reject crumbs of a market, a company (Bor), who just happens to be responsible for main stream application development to custom enterprise level applications sit there and has not, till this day ported a single visual development tool for Linux
(and Interbase Ain't good enuff). An untouched market, MS no where to be found, the whole market to themselves... and they are going to wait for Microsoft to take it over. Smart move people.
IBM, Where's the lotus suite? It should of been here 2 years ago. Installing Linux on IBM Systems is nice, but seeing they "have" the office suite to compete feature for feature and claim immediate market with, it seems a little odd that's there has not been and is no "solid" commitment on having this anytime soon. The idea is to have it "before" MS is there gobbling up the market and convice suits that the MS way is better rules once again, even on a different platform (which may change).
Sun, GNU Solaris? That's nice and dandy, but how' bout applications and network tools for linux that works and introduces a seamless integration between your very powerful servers to be administered by linux desktops, or should we all buy a sparc with linux on it? Invest real money , put real effort please...
SCO? Yeah, let me wait on skunkware to compile anything off the internet and don't you dare release a hint of source code to implement linux integration. Perhaps on day lxrun may "actually" run a linux program. Perhaps they should wait for someone to pay their $50,000.00 for their Xenix source code they so generously offer. May be I'll just buy a 5 user edition Unixware based Tarrentella Server for 4700.00 so I can run your SCO apps or my linux apps.
Novell? where's client 32 or equivalent so I do a simple thing like may be add a user to a netware box? PS I don't want to ~have~ to run Caldera and their client blows, its install on RedHat is upseting at best and is anything but serious... sorry, All credit due to Caldera, but no one saw serious Novell development help in development. 4.01 NDS for Linux? no thanks let's get up to date here. Java based, Server Side X only administration on netware 5.0 servers? no thanks. Netware's IP connectivity? no thanks. How about
NetAdmin, pconsole, filer.. how about those? (PS thanks for telnet rconsole, at least that's a start). Porting IE as an administration tools for netware just says it all... I'm sure Microsoft will reward them heavily by letting them keep a small portion of the print server market. Get off you asses (Netware) and provide ~real~ integration and linux based management tools for netware NOW! I'll consider Border Manager later how's that?
The kde flamers / non-gui, At least get a glimpse at someone else's clue. No one is "removing" text based administration from linux, its always there, always will be, and don't install X. The difference between Linux and NT is "choice" and "Freedom", not X and Text Based.
The gimme fo' free mongers. What about an Economy? A business plan ? Bills? College Fees? Paying for food? Legal fees? Accountants fees? I suggest reading a book somewhere. Yes! Open/Free software is good and creates numerous opportunities, yes! Its what allowed Linux to get where it is today is largely due to the fact that its "free" and "open", (as much so open in my mind but any ways..), However, for corporate and enterprise level based apps to compete with MS level apps "require" corporate funding and people and small developing businesses to dedicate near 100% of their time in development, which means they need money period.
Even RedHat's business model is based on "income" for them to survive, not how many people download the RH distro and banner advertisement. Sorry folks, part time development, splintered development in distros and spare time hobbyists may make a good kernel and base tools but they aren't gonna beat MS applications. Once we come to this firm realization and deal with the facts, perhaps we stand a chance when MS decides to engage in war, dirty tactics, blood bath marketing methods, fear mongering and corporate bribing
(which we have have only seen the tip of the iceberg towards linux).
PS: the free version of star office or applix ware won't save thee and for some reason I doubt development will get any better on your promise to download it free to show them how much you care.
The visionaries - some late, but better than never,
Of course the Linux developers, kernel / apps / docs coders/writers
RedHat,Caldera., SusE and others...
Troll-Tech
The KDE Team
The Gnome Team
Computer Associates
Slashdot
Freshmeat etc
Corel (out of complete lack of alternatives)
And the late, but better late than never.
Intuit
Oracle
Sysbase
Informix
And some others
Finishing thoughts,
For us to go around at this point, parading on how linux has and will destroy, or claim Micrsoft's market only shows complete ignorance, underestimation and flawed over optimistic theories about Microsoft. Linux needs, IBM, Sun, RedHat and other distros to put forth a "massive" effort towards the desktop apps hole which Microsoft will surely use to get in. This requires Money, Investment, the OSS and everyone else to work towards this goal "without splinter". And buy the damn cd from time to time! Especially if your not developing anything.
This will insure the growth and continuation of Linux both on the server side and desktop side, free and commercial and choice.
Allright, I feel better now
Windows, the biggest seller of Intel processors.
Intel invests in Linux based companies (RH, now VA).
Microsoft says little publicaly, only some internal second hand murmurs about their discontent...
Intel includes ID 64 bit serialization within PIII's and quotes... "The average person that can do whatever they want is the enemy"... hmm, isn't that what linux is all about?
Why would a company with that attitude invest in exactly a market that represents their classifications of an enemy...
What's next? Microsoft invests in Linux based companies? or may be, they simply can afford to do it directly.
Call me paranoid but this combination of events is strange. I'm all for big companies investing and spreading commercial dollars, as long as "we get to do whatever we want".
I'm very happy with my AMD and Alpha processors. Hopefully Compaq will capitalize on their new technology in the correct direction.
I don't like what I'm seeing here.
First of all I'm all for OSS and its proven its case, time and time again in regards to functionality and stability. Its certainly managed to keep large corporation in check with the new pressure of producing good code for a better price.
My problem is this "We don't need a new billionaire" or "you don't ~need~ to be a billionaire approach". This in its self ~is~ communism. First of all, we better thank those non government oriented corporations and individuals for
~being~ billionaires, which just so happens to layout the fundamental basis of economy which allows smaller companies to grow, for people to have decent jobs that they can feed their family with conformably.
Not everyone want's to be a government employee making the same salary or a salary geared towards popular acceptance.
You want to be a billionaire, then be one. I know its will circulate into my pocket and everyone's pocket... its the law
of economy presuming we don't chase their investment into other countries due to tax punishment for having that money.
The patent laws have gone off the wall, this is true. But to say one cannot be awarded a patent based on the fact that they are an individual or haven't spent 50 years in development is complete non-sense and "is" communism. At least in America, this is a land of the "individual", not organizations, corporations and government. Let it be up to the individual what to do with his/her invention or patent. But I would agree that no one needs a patent on an ashtray umbrella.
In my opinion, Linus should have full rights to patent linux. Whether he wants to charge for it or give it away under a gnu license, that "his" business, not some community or a group of gimme free mongers.
You demand free stuff, then sit "your" ass down, code it "yourself" for free, and give it away. Don't tell "me" I can't patent/sell and commercialize my software.
Note:
My comments are to only those who apply.
No big loss to me...
I bought a toshiba a couple years ago and swore I would "never" buy one again. The thing never worked right, had bad block the 5th week I bought it and got no support from toshiba.
Buy Sony's VAIO, I just bought one, and linux supports "everything" in it. Modem, pcmcia, full screen text mode ~without~ svgatextmode(hard to find in any laptop).
Definately the best buy right now in my opinion.