Take the getting a free gun at the bank scene. In fact, the bank would give you a voucher that could be used at a gun store, once all the regular checks were done. The scene was completely staged - that makes it fiction, not documentary.
When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).
Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).
So you can call him a liar, but I think he's telling the truth.
I consider it far more likely that there are people who dislike what Michael Moore says and they don't mind telling lies to discredit him.
But it should not be ignored that you can now add filesystems to a running kernel as modules, and even build them outside of the kernel tree. At this point, Linux is essentially a microkernel design running as a monolithic kernel for performance reasons as an implementation detail.
Dynamically loadable modules does not make Linux a microkernel design. It would only be a microkernel if the filesystem code ran in a different address space. But because ext3.o runs in the same address space as the kernel, it is most definitely a monolithic design. It is not a "microkernel design running as a monolithic kernel". That's just a nonsensical statement.
A future version could offer the option of running the filesystems in userspace if you want. (That is, running all of the filesystems in userspace with the kernel fs API; there's already support for having filesystems in userspace if you want.) I wouldn't be surprised if people having weird problems would be advised to try the "ext3.userspace" option, and if you could avoid tainting your kernel with "nvidia.userspace".
You clearly understand that the significant distinction between microkernel and monolithic is the address space for the subsystems. So I can't understand why you'd suggest that kernel modules makes Linux "essentially a microkernel design". Look at the address space for ext3.o; it's kernel space.
I don't see Linux evolving into a microkernel until there's hardware support for cross address space branching. Don't hold your breath.
If anything good come out of this whole mess, maybe it's that AST really got to show us what he's really like instead of all of us just assuming that he was bitter about the MINIX/Linux history.
I'm not sure "all of us" assumed anything of the sort. I always thought AST was doing what he does best; arguing the technical merits of the design. If you hang out on LKML then you see the same sort of arguments every single day (though usually about VM these days). I never thought AST was arguing out of bitterness. I don't think AST ever wanted the attention that came with Minix.
Tanenbaum (AST) is a Professor who worked at AT&T and has written many textbooks aimed at university students. AST's most famous book - Operating Systems: Design and Implementation - includes a UNIX-alike operating system called Minix that he wrote himself. Minix includes binaries and source code for the kernel, C library, C compiler, and all the utilities. AST wrote Minix and the book to teach students how operating systems are written. Any computing science student who attended a decent university in the past decade has probably had at least one of AST's books as a required text.
Minix ran on an 8086 and didn't have modern virtual memory (VM) features. When the 80386 came out there were some unofficial patches to make Minix/386. These patches added virtual memory and paging and memory protection, turning Minix into an useful OS. AST refused to add these patches to Minix, rightly arguing that they would make Minix too complex for a student to understand. Minix was a teaching tool, not a general purpose OS, even though Minix/386 was a pretty good general purpose OS. Unfortunately the license back then didn't permit forking. Despite these limitations, Minix had a very large user community. .
When Linus came along and announced Linux a lot of people realised that GNU (basically all of UNIX except for the kernel) and Linux (basically none of UNIX except the kernel) when combined would produce a UNIX-alike operating system. Just like Minix but with VM and the more relaxed GPL for a license. There was no Linux news group so all the discussions were on the Minix news group.
AST put his two cents in on the Linux kernel. He correctly pointed out that the Linux design was a 30 year old monolithic design; not elegant or modern. Linus argued back that monolithic kernels are more practical. AST said Linus would fail his OS class, if Linus was his student. That's the infamous AST/Linus flamewar. It wasn't very hot, as far as flamewars went. AST was right, so was Linus. They just had different perspectives.
Ken Brown is an ignorant idiot who is selling a book claiming that Linus didn't write Linux. He argues that noone could write something so complex as a UNIX-like kernel without stealing code. Ken is under the delusion that writing a UNIX needs a huge team of people working for many years. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that the first UNIX was written by Ken Thompson on a computer so ancient that your wrist watch has more computing power. For "research", Ken Brown spoke to AST. Notably he did not speak to Linus Torvalds. AST is pointing out that Ken is lying in his book; AST has pointed to several examples of single authors who created a UNIX-like kernel, AST included.
The confusion might be that Ken Brown doesn't understand that Linux is just a kernel. The first "Linux" that you ran back in 1991 was actually GNU/Linux. Linux comprised less than 2% of that system. RMS and his team had been working on GNU for nearly a decade by that stage (longer if you count emacs). Linux The Kernel was a small piece of the puzzle. An essential piece, but certainly writable in 6 months by a bright and talented person. These days, Linux is an incredibly tiny piece of a "Linux distribution". Ken Brown might think that Linus is laying claim to the entire system. Of course, Linus has only ever claimed credit for the first kernel. Recent kernels have very little "Linus" in them. And the distro you have on the desktop is less than 1% Linux anyway.
The other theory is that Ken Brown is being paid by SCO/Microsoft/LatestPariah to create FUD over the legal origins of Linux.
I prefer my own theory. Ken wants attention. Saying something ridiculous gets easy attention and increases book sales. We're playing right into his hands by giving him the time of day. It gives him false credibility by creating a "controversy" when in reality there is no controversy. Just Ken saying ridiculous things with no evidence to back them up. It's like all those authors who write books on Noah's Ark, or the location of Atlantis. They must have a huge grin on their face when somebody pays attention to them.
Not so. IBM was called the benevolent dictator, and that since way before the 80s. I don't think I've ever seen Microsoft been called benevolent by any sane person...
I've never heard the benevolent dictator before to describe IBM, but I can believe it. In my own dealings, IBM hardware and software has always been highly praised. They build solid stuff. They support it _forever_ and a day. Documentation is second to none. But the IBM sales and marketting is a pariah. I've heard comments from other techs along the lines of "I wish I didn't have to deal with IBM's lawyers before I could use IBM's products".
The benefit of IBM going with open source is that you no longer need to deal with the sales people or the lawyers to get to the product. You speak directly with IBM's engineers. It's perfect. All the top qualities of IBM - the engineering, the attention to detail - without any of the biz crap you wish didn't exist.
NB: that's not to say every IBM product is a godsend. They've produced some absolute shit in the PC division (which includes their Intel/x86 based servers as far as I'm concerned). I'm sure there are other cockups too.
However, i recommend Fedore Core 2 now. Redhat's installer, bootloader, and everything is absolustely gorgeous. It's without a doubt the best looking distro. With yum and apt-rpm now i here most of my complaints about the lack of good rpm support is gone.
Agreed. I've been a Debian user for 6 years and I've been sorely tempted by Fedora Core 2. The install is beautiful but that's not important (you only install once). The real beauty of FC2 is every common management task - add a printer, open a firewall port, add a new network card - has its own graphical configuration wizard. The package management is on-par with Debian now (hell, it IS apt). Fedora Core 2 is just as committed to being fully free software as Debian. The BlueCurve interface is beautiful; everything looks the same, even OpenOffice had the right fonts. All onscreen fonts are anti-aliased. The GNOME setup has all the latest whizbangs including BlueTooth file exchange.
I converted my system from Red Hat to Debian 6 years ago, frustrated by "RPM Hell". Fedora Core 2 is the first distribution that's tempted me to switch away from Debian. I'm running FC2 at work and I can't recommend it highly enough.
I always wondered how these places stay in business. Do you really think the vendor's actually put a lot of thought into finding the perfect tomatoes, freshest eggs and milk, and softest loaves of bread?
Shrug. I honestly don't have a problem with it. I use Internet grocery shopping. I've never had a bad delivery; the veges and fruit are just fine. You just put your credit card into the site once a week and they deliver within a 2 hour window after work. Sure beats pushing a trolley around a store for an hour or two.
As for eggs, milk, bread; they always deliver the same stuff they have on the shelves. It's the same-day bread, and the same-day milk, and fresh eggs. I know it would seem that they'd use the opportunity to give you the stuff that's about to expire but in reality they don't do that.
He started work around noon, and in the late afternoon in that season the sunlight would come in under his arm, hit that part of his desk just right, bounce through the seams in the mouse buttons, and dazzle the "left" part of the optical sensor. If he kept it in shadow, it worked fine.
My first mouse ever was an A4 mouse. It had this intermittent error where sometimes it would stop tracking up and down. I tried cleaning it. Checking the driver (which I had written myself, ahem). There was simply no data from the mouse in the Y-axis. But at other times it worked fine.
I eventually figured it out. It only stopped working at night, but even then only some of the time. It was my desklamp. The 80W globe in my desklamp (I like it bright) shone through the cheap plastic and dazzled the optical sensor. If I had my hand fully over the mouse then that cast a shadow and it worked. But sometimes I held the mouse at an odd angle which let the light through.
I opened the mouse and stuck strips of duct tape over the inside of the case. Worked without any problems after that. I've still got that mouse on a server in the garage; over 15 years old.
Linux distribution vendors only have the right to charge equivalent costs to Windows if and when their distribution is equivalent or better than Windows in all respects, out of the box.
Linux distribution vendors have the right to charge whatever they damn well want for Linux, and you as a customer have the right to buy or not buy the product. No more. No less. Nobody appointed you God Of Linux Pricing. You don't get to dictate the vendor's rights.
um.. DOS was written from scratch by Tim Paterson. it was originally called qdos, which stood for "Quick and Dirty Operating System." MS bought the rights to it and renamed it MS-DOS. It looks similiar to cp/m but its an entirely different OS. look here http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Micronews/paterson 04_10_98.htm
I think that is entirely the point. Linux was also written from scratch[1] but based upon UNIX design and philosophy[2]. It (Linux) looks similar to UNIX but it's an entirely different OS.
The analogy is entirely apt. Microsoft got its big break by selling a CP/M knockoff. Linux is a UNIX knockoff. So what? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Perhaps somebody should release a whitepaper: "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-DOS". Could equally well follow that up with "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-Windows".
[1] Pedant Points: Linus says that the early (never distributed) versions of Linux contained Minix code but all that code was removed before the first ever public release.
[2] More Pedant Points: Some people might say Linux was based on Minix design, but Linus early on said he wanted to follow POSIX specs. So Linux is more correctly a POSIX wannabe.
We tried it out and decided it was, at best, inoffensive. The controls were fine, the graphics were fine, the multiplayer was fine... but it was nothing new, nothing special.
Amen. I was incredibly disappointed with Halo. The graphics were OK, though not spectacular. But I'd been led to believe it was the second coming of Christ, as far as games went. The hype around Halo had gone to unprecedented heights. Because it was an Xbox exclusive (I refuse to have a Windows PC just for games) I was almost tempted to buy an Xbox. I'm glad I didn't.
When I finally got my eager hands on Halo I found a FPS with no story, repetitive levels, and predictable "surprises". I played it for a few hours before turning it off. This wasn't a Quake. This wasn't an Unreal. This wasn't a Deus Ex, or Half-Life. Halo is/was an above-average FPS but it really isn't/wasn't all that special.
The hype-machine around Halo was bigger than the game. The game was certainly good. I'd have given it an 8/10. But from the way it was hyped I'd have expected 10/10. If anything, the hype worked against it because I expected more and was disappointed. I prefer to go in expecting very little and being pleasantly surprised (eg, Oni).
This dismissive attitude about problems with Linux (ill-informed or not) is exactly why I won't switch.
You're being silly. The Anonymous Coward who wrote that dismissive comment almost certainly doesn't write Linux code or have any influence over the process. Their dismissive attitude has little to no bearing on the actual work being undertaken to fix problems in Linux. It almost certainly doesn't reflect the opinion of real Linux developers.
Consider this, if I found you an anonymous Windows user denying a problem in Windows XP, would you refuse to use Windows XP? Yes? No? If no, then why are you applying a different standard to Linux?
However, most contrary arguments are arguing that MS is not losing money when you buy an Xbox. Of course they're not, the Xbox was already made and just sitting there. If no one bought it, MS would lose whatever it cost to manufacture, package, and ship.
What you say is only true if Microsoft is running out their stock.
More realistically, for every Xbox sold (at a loss) Microsoft makes another Xbox, because JIT manufacturing means they need a certain number in stock at all times.
Apple spends more than anyone on UI research and they have abandoned spacial..... are we to believe some hacker, former BeOS lover, is somehow more skilled than Apples UI teams?????? NO.
It has very little to do with UI research. It has more to do with the fact that MacOS X is mostly a rebadged version of NeXTSTEP. Spatial browsing was what Apple's UI designers came up with, not the current abomination. A lot of MacOS users are very upset that the superb MacOS 9 file management has been discarded.
And I strongly believe that Microsoft spends more on UI research than Apple. You could easily argue that Apple gets better value for money:-)
First, go to the OSRM news page and read all of those SCO articles. You will notice the common theme is that we say that SCO doesn't have a case. If we wanted to capitalize on FUD, we would say "maybe", not "no way" about their case.
I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting the facts. I'm saying that you should stop claiming that SCO isn't important, because looking at the OSRM website makes it very clear that SCO is the primary reason for OSRM's existence.
Second, you really should give me some credit for the years that I have spent attempting to reform just the laws you are talking about, an effort that I continue with OSRM's support. And notice that OSRM is funding work by PJ of Groklaw as well, who certainly is carrying on the fight you are calling for as well.
I'm not accusing you of deception, and I give you every credit for what you've done in the past. I also have no doubt that you believe what you're doing right now is appropriate. Just like PJ thinks it's the right thing to do when she writes "M$" in her opinion pages and writes foul remarks about Gosling. But reasonable people can disagree that you're doing the right thing.
Frivolous and unfounded lawsuits are not ABNORMAL, unfortunately. Any large business has learned that, and now it's our turn. SCO will not be the last we face.
Repeat with me... WE ARE NOT A LARGE BUSINESS. This is the Linux community. We are end-users and user groups. We don't have the deep pockets of the large businesses. So $250/year for OSRM's imdemnity is often a deal breaker. I can't "sell" Linux services to anybody who has heard of OSRM because you've scared them all witless. These people are convinced there's a problem because they hear SCO saying "Linux has issues" and OSRM saying "Linux doesn't have issues with SCO, but it might have issues with other companies, so you'll have to buy insurance to use Linux from now on". They're saying "even your OSS 'leaders' are admitting there are legal problems with Linux, so there's no way are we entering murky legal waters by using Linux".
Don't you think it's a good idea for us to be prepared? I think a permanent legal team to help defend us, and a revneue stream to support it, are no small thing.
Damn right I think it's a good idea to be prepared. That's why I donate money to the FSF. But I'm unconvinced that OSRM is anything other than a professional scam. If OSRM was a non-profit organistation like the FSF, or if OSRM actively worked to have the American courts rule that end-users can not be held liable for the misdeeds of companies, then OSRM would have more credibility. However OSRM is trying to profit from the uncertainty surrounding SCO and patents, and I think that is exploitive opportunism.
Think of it from our perspective, Bruce. SCO announces they'll start suing end-users of Linux. An incredulous and truly sick idea. OSRM springs into existence almost overnight, crowing about the legal murky waters surrounding Linux, and _conveniently_ selling insurance. OSRM suddenly hires not one, but two prominent names in the OSS world to give them credibility (because they wouldn't have had any without you). Both of those prominent names suddenly go into overdrive, using their existing forums to tell everybody how important it is to pay for indemnity. If that sequence of events doesn't ring alarm bells, then what does?
Why am I liable for the misdeeds of another person?
Well, you aren't. But proving that could be expensive.
You could alleviate most of the complaints about OSRM if your press releases just said that in plain English. "You aren't required to pay money to SCO if Linux contains SCO code, because that's not your fault, but you might need to pay money to your lawyers to prove that because SCO is suing everybody". If you just said that then it wouldn't be FUD. But instead the OSRM partyline is "Open Source is legally risky and you need to pay money to our crack team of lawyers to mitigate the risk". That's the FUD. Right there.
The best thing you can do when thinking about OSRM is to assume that SCO is gone (soon enough that'll be true) and consider what our role is when facing patent claims. There will be enough of them.
Let's not ignore SCO, because face facts, SCO is the only reason OSRM exists. The OSRM website is plastered with SCO news and SCO stories. It's the only example people care about because it's the ONLY example of a company suing end-users. I think it's silly for you to keep pretending we should ignore SCO. They're the only reason OSRM gets any press at all.
The thing about patents is that there doesn't even need to be copyright or contract problems. I could be using a $20 piece of shareware, binary only, written in total isolation by the Finnish author, and still get sued by Random Company XYZ for patent infringement. So this most certainly isn't a problem with Open Source. It's a problem with software patents in general. But once again you only mention this patent problem in relation to OSS.
But we need clearer law here, or at least good case law.
And if OSRM actively went out and tried to clarify the law, then I'd be cheering you on. But that's not what OSRM is doing. OSRM is agreeing there's a problem and is exploiting the problem to make money. You should be proactively working to have the laws made clear, so that end users are clearly not liable, rather than using the flaw in the legal system to charge end-users for problems which YOU AGREE they are not liable.
I know that there are some cases I could win as a defendant, but I'd have to spend all I have to get there, and wouldn't get it back. Is that really winning?
And this is really my biggest concern. SCO is an abnormality. They are the first and only well known company ever suing end-users (eg, Autozone) because of the alleged contract breaches between SCO and IBM. Let's repeat that; Autozone is being sued because of a contract breach between SCO and IBM.
That's pretty abnormal. I can't think of any other non-SCO case even remotely similar and people have fruitlessly asked another well-noted OSRM member for similar case history. This is unique. This is ABNORMAL. But here's OSRM telling us that this is normal and commonplace and we should pay OSRM for "insurance" against companies like SCO, but not SCO in particular, because we all know SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's absurd. On the one hand you're telling us that it's a real danger, but on the other hand you're saying SCO isn't dangerous even though they're your only example!
It's like OSRM is selling Tiger Insurance. Nobody has tiger insurance because, heck, there aren't a lot of tigers around. Suddenly one tiger escapes from the zoo and mauls 5 innocent victims. Almost immediately this Tiger Risk Management mob springs into existence, selling tiger insurance. TRM tells us that tiger mauling is commonplace and points to the zoo-incident as proof. They never justify how realistic the danger is, but they are all too willing to sell the insurance. TRM is capitalising on the fear generated by a single and abnormal incident. TRM even goes on to suggest that future changes in zoo policy migh
And I'd answer, if anyone actually asked a question.
Ok, Bruce, I've got two.
Why am I liable for the misdeeds of another person? A programmer infringes copyright, or breaches a contract, and the user is the one who gets in trouble and owes money. That's OSRM's claim and it seems like an extraordinary claim, but nobody seems very keen to explain why. I want extraordinary evidence, not just the vague hand-waving OSRM has made about patents.
Why OSRM (Open Source Risk Management) instead of SRM (Software Risk Management)? It would have been possible to vette proprietary software under NDA, then offer the same levels of indemnity to users of proprietary software. There's a huge shareware market out there. Indemnifying only OSS users really does reek; it seems to many of us that it's an attempt to capitalise on the FUD surrounding SCO's claims re: Linux.
Microsoft wanted to make running Linux more expensive than it was, relative to Windows. By threatening Linux through their proxy, SCO, they have succeeded in increasing the cost of Linux: Linux users need to take out insurance that Windows users don't need to buy.
OSRM is selling the idea that I, as a user, could be sued by a company like SCO because of some software that I use written by some guy I've never met. Huh? It makes no sense at all, that I can be punished because of the misdeeds of somebody else, but for the sake of argument and because of my cynical opinion of American law I will assume that it's the ugly reality.
Now why can't I, as a user, be sued by a company like SCO because of something that some proprietary software vendor wrote? Why not? Why is OSRM only talking about *Open Source* insurance. The name, Open Source Risk Management, implies this is a risk only with Open Source software. Doesn't the same risk exist with any software.
OSRM might justify their focus on OSS because they can't vette proprietary software, and fair enough, but as an end-user I just see that Open Source has risk and proprietary software does not. Even with all the best intentions, and with the honorable goal of "defending" OSS users from the evil clutches of lawyers, it still reeks of FUD.
My real concern is that 18 months ago it was ludicrous to even suggest that I should owe money to a company like SCO. Why should I be liable if some nasty programmer rips off code from SCO? But now we have OSRM loudly telling us "yes it's true you might owe money to random companies, just by the mere act of using software" and, lo and behold they conveniently will indemnify us for just a little bit of our money. So now Linux isn't "free" anymore. It's a little bit more expensive than it was 18 months ago. Oh sure, it's "optional", but it still reeks of FUD. First they spread the FUD and then they sell the indemnity that'll assuage your fear.
It looks, walks and quacks like a fricking scam. If it didn't have Perens behind it then everybody would be calling OSRM a con job. But OSRM was smart. They tricked (bribed?) some big Linux names to get in on the action. Maybe Perens even believes what he's saying. Hey, maybe it's even true, maybe you do need to be indemnified to use software, as foul as that idea might be. BUT IT STILL REEKS OF FUD.
I agree with your comments. This smells just like an attempt by proprietary companies to increase the TCO of Linux. I think Perens is the stooge: the best stooges are the people who believe what they're saying.
Exactly my point. I fail to understand this whole OSS need to make a desktop, an interface and file manager that "just looks like MS!". Why is is to?
It's only an "OSS need" in your imagination. There are 100s of OSS desktops. I'm currently using twm (don't ask) and last week I was using enlightenment (also don't ask). Neither looks anything like Windows. You're looking at one of the many OSS desktops, noting similarities to Windows, and generalising that all OSS desktops are clones of Windows. That's intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Or is it that they all accept deep down that MS has an interface that's hard to top?
It's not even as if Windows invented their interface. It's an obvious amalgamation of UI ideas from NeXTSTEP, MacOS (classic), OS/2, CDE and several others. Saying that "OSS" (and you really mean KDE) is copying Windows is naive. It is rather that Windows and KDE are both copying from 30 years of GUI research and experimentation by 100s of companies.
. in all fairness if the tables were turned and M$ had only 5% and linux had 90% of the users out there you can bet we'd be seeing virues/trojans/worms and hacks coming from all over the place,
Hrm, I don't necessarily disagree, but I think there's a good chance your nightmare scenario wouldn't happen if Linux ruled the market. The reason is simple; competition.
There is no incentive for Microsoft to sell a secure product because what's your alternative? The cost of switching to another platform is much greater than just wearing the costs of patching and rebuilding infected boxes. So Microsoft does not have any pressure to make a better product.
But in the Linux market there are far too many distributions for any vendor to be complacent. If Red Hat starts getting infected then customers are going to say "make it secure or we'll switch to SuSe". There will be tremendous pressure on Red Hat to fix their distribution. And the open source nature of (most) Linux distributions means that there are no technological or legal barriers preventing Red Hat from "stealing" the best ideas from SuSe.
However there are two considerations that lend more weight to your nightmare scenario. The first is that it's becoming harder to switch from one Linux distribution to another. Schwartz recently called this the "proprietary nature" of Red Hat. I don't agree with his terminology (there is *nothing* proprietary about Red Hat) but I think his point was really about vendor lock-in. There is no denying that the Linux distributions are starting to create vendor lock-in. It's not very obvious right now but I see the signs.
The second is that the distributions don't actually write a lot of the software. They can only sell what the software writers produce. So Red Hat simply doesn't have the resources to make BIND secure (Hercules couldn't do that). Though even in this second case, there is competition in the free-software sphere of nameserver software. So Red Hat always has the option of switching to ddns or whatever.
I think overall, on reflection of your points, I would say that a world dominated by Linux would be more secure. It wouldn't be utopian, and there would still be incidents similar to Sasser, but I think it would pale in comparison to the damage caused by the monoculture created by a complacent Microsoft.
I can't comment on which is the best eBook reader because I've only ever used one.
I'm talking about a Palm, of course. It has a backlit screen, great battery life, fits into the palm of one hand, plenty of reader software, good integration with Linux, enough space for dozens of books, and it's cheap! You can get a second hand Palm Vx for $30. That means it's so cheap that you don't care if you lose/break it. So you can take it anywhere. Leave it in your pocket. Take it when you go travelling.
There might be better eBook readers out there but I'm happy with the Palm Vx.
Slashdot Mirror
Michael Moore says it was not staged. I quote:
So you can call him a liar, but I think he's telling the truth.
I consider it far more likely that there are people who dislike what Michael Moore says and they don't mind telling lies to discredit him.
Dynamically loadable modules does not make Linux a microkernel design. It would only be a microkernel if the filesystem code ran in a different address space. But because ext3.o runs in the same address space as the kernel, it is most definitely a monolithic design. It is not a "microkernel design running as a monolithic kernel". That's just a nonsensical statement.
You clearly understand that the significant distinction between microkernel and monolithic is the address space for the subsystems. So I can't understand why you'd suggest that kernel modules makes Linux "essentially a microkernel design". Look at the address space for ext3.o; it's kernel space.
I don't see Linux evolving into a microkernel until there's hardware support for cross address space branching. Don't hold your breath.
I'm not sure "all of us" assumed anything of the sort. I always thought AST was doing what he does best; arguing the technical merits of the design. If you hang out on LKML then you see the same sort of arguments every single day (though usually about VM these days). I never thought AST was arguing out of bitterness. I don't think AST ever wanted the attention that came with Minix.
How about you say "some of us" instead.
Tanenbaum (AST) is a Professor who worked at AT&T and has written many textbooks aimed at university students. AST's most famous book - Operating Systems: Design and Implementation - includes a UNIX-alike operating system called Minix that he wrote himself. Minix includes binaries and source code for the kernel, C library, C compiler, and all the utilities. AST wrote Minix and the book to teach students how operating systems are written. Any computing science student who attended a decent university in the past decade has probably had at least one of AST's books as a required text.
Minix ran on an 8086 and didn't have modern virtual memory (VM) features. When the 80386 came out there were some unofficial patches to make Minix/386. These patches added virtual memory and paging and memory protection, turning Minix into an useful OS. AST refused to add these patches to Minix, rightly arguing that they would make Minix too complex for a student to understand. Minix was a teaching tool, not a general purpose OS, even though Minix/386 was a pretty good general purpose OS. Unfortunately the license back then didn't permit forking. Despite these limitations, Minix had a very large user community. .
When Linus came along and announced Linux a lot of people realised that GNU (basically all of UNIX except for the kernel) and Linux (basically none of UNIX except the kernel) when combined would produce a UNIX-alike operating system. Just like Minix but with VM and the more relaxed GPL for a license. There was no Linux news group so all the discussions were on the Minix news group.
AST put his two cents in on the Linux kernel. He correctly pointed out that the Linux design was a 30 year old monolithic design; not elegant or modern. Linus argued back that monolithic kernels are more practical. AST said Linus would fail his OS class, if Linus was his student. That's the infamous AST/Linus flamewar. It wasn't very hot, as far as flamewars went. AST was right, so was Linus. They just had different perspectives.
Ken Brown is an ignorant idiot who is selling a book claiming that Linus didn't write Linux. He argues that noone could write something so complex as a UNIX-like kernel without stealing code. Ken is under the delusion that writing a UNIX needs a huge team of people working for many years. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that the first UNIX was written by Ken Thompson on a computer so ancient that your wrist watch has more computing power. For "research", Ken Brown spoke to AST. Notably he did not speak to Linus Torvalds. AST is pointing out that Ken is lying in his book; AST has pointed to several examples of single authors who created a UNIX-like kernel, AST included.
The confusion might be that Ken Brown doesn't understand that Linux is just a kernel. The first "Linux" that you ran back in 1991 was actually GNU/Linux. Linux comprised less than 2% of that system. RMS and his team had been working on GNU for nearly a decade by that stage (longer if you count emacs). Linux The Kernel was a small piece of the puzzle. An essential piece, but certainly writable in 6 months by a bright and talented person. These days, Linux is an incredibly tiny piece of a "Linux distribution". Ken Brown might think that Linus is laying claim to the entire system. Of course, Linus has only ever claimed credit for the first kernel. Recent kernels have very little "Linus" in them. And the distro you have on the desktop is less than 1% Linux anyway.
The other theory is that Ken Brown is being paid by SCO/Microsoft/LatestPariah to create FUD over the legal origins of Linux.
I prefer my own theory. Ken wants attention. Saying something ridiculous gets easy attention and increases book sales. We're playing right into his hands by giving him the time of day. It gives him false credibility by creating a "controversy" when in reality there is no controversy. Just Ken saying ridiculous things with no evidence to back them up. It's like all those authors who write books on Noah's Ark, or the location of Atlantis. They must have a huge grin on their face when somebody pays attention to them.
I've never heard the benevolent dictator before to describe IBM, but I can believe it. In my own dealings, IBM hardware and software has always been highly praised. They build solid stuff. They support it _forever_ and a day. Documentation is second to none. But the IBM sales and marketting is a pariah. I've heard comments from other techs along the lines of "I wish I didn't have to deal with IBM's lawyers before I could use IBM's products".
The benefit of IBM going with open source is that you no longer need to deal with the sales people or the lawyers to get to the product. You speak directly with IBM's engineers. It's perfect. All the top qualities of IBM - the engineering, the attention to detail - without any of the biz crap you wish didn't exist.
NB: that's not to say every IBM product is a godsend. They've produced some absolute shit in the PC division (which includes their Intel/x86 based servers as far as I'm concerned). I'm sure there are other cockups too.
Agreed. I've been a Debian user for 6 years and I've been sorely tempted by Fedora Core 2. The install is beautiful but that's not important (you only install once). The real beauty of FC2 is every common management task - add a printer, open a firewall port, add a new network card - has its own graphical configuration wizard. The package management is on-par with Debian now (hell, it IS apt). Fedora Core 2 is just as committed to being fully free software as Debian. The BlueCurve interface is beautiful; everything looks the same, even OpenOffice had the right fonts. All onscreen fonts are anti-aliased. The GNOME setup has all the latest whizbangs including BlueTooth file exchange.
I converted my system from Red Hat to Debian 6 years ago, frustrated by "RPM Hell". Fedora Core 2 is the first distribution that's tempted me to switch away from Debian. I'm running FC2 at work and I can't recommend it highly enough.
Shrug. I honestly don't have a problem with it. I use Internet grocery shopping. I've never had a bad delivery; the veges and fruit are just fine. You just put your credit card into the site once a week and they deliver within a 2 hour window after work. Sure beats pushing a trolley around a store for an hour or two.
As for eggs, milk, bread; they always deliver the same stuff they have on the shelves. It's the same-day bread, and the same-day milk, and fresh eggs. I know it would seem that they'd use the opportunity to give you the stuff that's about to expire but in reality they don't do that.
My first mouse ever was an A4 mouse. It had this intermittent error where sometimes it would stop tracking up and down. I tried cleaning it. Checking the driver (which I had written myself, ahem). There was simply no data from the mouse in the Y-axis. But at other times it worked fine.
I eventually figured it out. It only stopped working at night, but even then only some of the time. It was my desklamp. The 80W globe in my desklamp (I like it bright) shone through the cheap plastic and dazzled the optical sensor. If I had my hand fully over the mouse then that cast a shadow and it worked. But sometimes I held the mouse at an odd angle which let the light through.
I opened the mouse and stuck strips of duct tape over the inside of the case. Worked without any problems after that. I've still got that mouse on a server in the garage; over 15 years old.
Moral of the story: duct tape can fix anything!
Linux distribution vendors have the right to charge whatever they damn well want for Linux, and you as a customer have the right to buy or not buy the product. No more. No less. Nobody appointed you God Of Linux Pricing. You don't get to dictate the vendor's rights.
If you're refering to Brad Pitt, he was brilliant in 12 Monkeys, and in Snatch, and in Fight Club, and in Se7en, and in Johnny Suede.
He's not the world's greatest actor, but he earnt my respect by playing great roles in some of the best films of all time.
I think that is entirely the point. Linux was also written from scratch[1] but based upon UNIX design and philosophy[2]. It (Linux) looks similar to UNIX but it's an entirely different OS.
The analogy is entirely apt. Microsoft got its big break by selling a CP/M knockoff. Linux is a UNIX knockoff. So what? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Perhaps somebody should release a whitepaper: "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-DOS". Could equally well follow that up with "Bill Gates is not the father of MS-Windows".
[1] Pedant Points: Linus says that the early (never distributed) versions of Linux contained Minix code but all that code was removed before the first ever public release.
[2] More Pedant Points: Some people might say Linux was based on Minix design, but Linus early on said he wanted to follow POSIX specs. So Linux is more correctly a POSIX wannabe.
Amen. I was incredibly disappointed with Halo. The graphics were OK, though not spectacular. But I'd been led to believe it was the second coming of Christ, as far as games went. The hype around Halo had gone to unprecedented heights. Because it was an Xbox exclusive (I refuse to have a Windows PC just for games) I was almost tempted to buy an Xbox. I'm glad I didn't.
When I finally got my eager hands on Halo I found a FPS with no story, repetitive levels, and predictable "surprises". I played it for a few hours before turning it off. This wasn't a Quake. This wasn't an Unreal. This wasn't a Deus Ex, or Half-Life. Halo is/was an above-average FPS but it really isn't/wasn't all that special.
The hype-machine around Halo was bigger than the game. The game was certainly good. I'd have given it an 8/10. But from the way it was hyped I'd have expected 10/10. If anything, the hype worked against it because I expected more and was disappointed. I prefer to go in expecting very little and being pleasantly surprised (eg, Oni).
PS: yes, yes, Oni wasn't as good as Halo.
You're being silly. The Anonymous Coward who wrote that dismissive comment almost certainly doesn't write Linux code or have any influence over the process. Their dismissive attitude has little to no bearing on the actual work being undertaken to fix problems in Linux. It almost certainly doesn't reflect the opinion of real Linux developers.
Consider this, if I found you an anonymous Windows user denying a problem in Windows XP, would you refuse to use Windows XP? Yes? No? If no, then why are you applying a different standard to Linux?
What you say is only true if Microsoft is running out their stock.
More realistically, for every Xbox sold (at a loss) Microsoft makes another Xbox, because JIT manufacturing means they need a certain number in stock at all times.
It has very little to do with UI research. It has more to do with the fact that MacOS X is mostly a rebadged version of NeXTSTEP. Spatial browsing was what Apple's UI designers came up with, not the current abomination. A lot of MacOS users are very upset that the superb MacOS 9 file management has been discarded.
And I strongly believe that Microsoft spends more on UI research than Apple. You could easily argue that Apple gets better value for money :-)
I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting the facts. I'm saying that you should stop claiming that SCO isn't important, because looking at the OSRM website makes it very clear that SCO is the primary reason for OSRM's existence.
I'm not accusing you of deception, and I give you every credit for what you've done in the past. I also have no doubt that you believe what you're doing right now is appropriate. Just like PJ thinks it's the right thing to do when she writes "M$" in her opinion pages and writes foul remarks about Gosling. But reasonable people can disagree that you're doing the right thing.
Repeat with me... WE ARE NOT A LARGE BUSINESS. This is the Linux community. We are end-users and user groups. We don't have the deep pockets of the large businesses. So $250/year for OSRM's imdemnity is often a deal breaker. I can't "sell" Linux services to anybody who has heard of OSRM because you've scared them all witless. These people are convinced there's a problem because they hear SCO saying "Linux has issues" and OSRM saying "Linux doesn't have issues with SCO, but it might have issues with other companies, so you'll have to buy insurance to use Linux from now on". They're saying "even your OSS 'leaders' are admitting there are legal problems with Linux, so there's no way are we entering murky legal waters by using Linux".
Damn right I think it's a good idea to be prepared. That's why I donate money to the FSF. But I'm unconvinced that OSRM is anything other than a professional scam. If OSRM was a non-profit organistation like the FSF, or if OSRM actively worked to have the American courts rule that end-users can not be held liable for the misdeeds of companies, then OSRM would have more credibility. However OSRM is trying to profit from the uncertainty surrounding SCO and patents, and I think that is exploitive opportunism.
Think of it from our perspective, Bruce. SCO announces they'll start suing end-users of Linux. An incredulous and truly sick idea. OSRM springs into existence almost overnight, crowing about the legal murky waters surrounding Linux, and _conveniently_ selling insurance. OSRM suddenly hires not one, but two prominent names in the OSS world to give them credibility (because they wouldn't have had any without you). Both of those prominent names suddenly go into overdrive, using their existing forums to tell everybody how important it is to pay for indemnity. If that sequence of events doesn't ring alarm bells, then what does?
You could alleviate most of the complaints about OSRM if your press releases just said that in plain English. "You aren't required to pay money to SCO if Linux contains SCO code, because that's not your fault, but you might need to pay money to your lawyers to prove that because SCO is suing everybody". If you just said that then it wouldn't be FUD. But instead the OSRM partyline is "Open Source is legally risky and you need to pay money to our crack team of lawyers to mitigate the risk". That's the FUD. Right there.
Let's not ignore SCO, because face facts, SCO is the only reason OSRM exists. The OSRM website is plastered with SCO news and SCO stories. It's the only example people care about because it's the ONLY example of a company suing end-users. I think it's silly for you to keep pretending we should ignore SCO. They're the only reason OSRM gets any press at all.
The thing about patents is that there doesn't even need to be copyright or contract problems. I could be using a $20 piece of shareware, binary only, written in total isolation by the Finnish author, and still get sued by Random Company XYZ for patent infringement. So this most certainly isn't a problem with Open Source. It's a problem with software patents in general. But once again you only mention this patent problem in relation to OSS.
And if OSRM actively went out and tried to clarify the law, then I'd be cheering you on. But that's not what OSRM is doing. OSRM is agreeing there's a problem and is exploiting the problem to make money. You should be proactively working to have the laws made clear, so that end users are clearly not liable, rather than using the flaw in the legal system to charge end-users for problems which YOU AGREE they are not liable.
And this is really my biggest concern. SCO is an abnormality. They are the first and only well known company ever suing end-users (eg, Autozone) because of the alleged contract breaches between SCO and IBM. Let's repeat that; Autozone is being sued because of a contract breach between SCO and IBM.
That's pretty abnormal. I can't think of any other non-SCO case even remotely similar and people have fruitlessly asked another well-noted OSRM member for similar case history. This is unique. This is ABNORMAL. But here's OSRM telling us that this is normal and commonplace and we should pay OSRM for "insurance" against companies like SCO, but not SCO in particular, because we all know SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's absurd. On the one hand you're telling us that it's a real danger, but on the other hand you're saying SCO isn't dangerous even though they're your only example!
It's like OSRM is selling Tiger Insurance. Nobody has tiger insurance because, heck, there aren't a lot of tigers around. Suddenly one tiger escapes from the zoo and mauls 5 innocent victims. Almost immediately this Tiger Risk Management mob springs into existence, selling tiger insurance. TRM tells us that tiger mauling is commonplace and points to the zoo-incident as proof. They never justify how realistic the danger is, but they are all too willing to sell the insurance. TRM is capitalising on the fear generated by a single and abnormal incident. TRM even goes on to suggest that future changes in zoo policy migh
Ok, Bruce, I've got two.
Why am I liable for the misdeeds of another person? A programmer infringes copyright, or breaches a contract, and the user is the one who gets in trouble and owes money. That's OSRM's claim and it seems like an extraordinary claim, but nobody seems very keen to explain why. I want extraordinary evidence, not just the vague hand-waving OSRM has made about patents.
Why OSRM (Open Source Risk Management) instead of SRM (Software Risk Management)? It would have been possible to vette proprietary software under NDA, then offer the same levels of indemnity to users of proprietary software. There's a huge shareware market out there. Indemnifying only OSS users really does reek; it seems to many of us that it's an attempt to capitalise on the FUD surrounding SCO's claims re: Linux.
OSRM is selling the idea that I, as a user, could be sued by a company like SCO because of some software that I use written by some guy I've never met. Huh? It makes no sense at all, that I can be punished because of the misdeeds of somebody else, but for the sake of argument and because of my cynical opinion of American law I will assume that it's the ugly reality.
Now why can't I, as a user, be sued by a company like SCO because of something that some proprietary software vendor wrote? Why not? Why is OSRM only talking about *Open Source* insurance. The name, Open Source Risk Management, implies this is a risk only with Open Source software. Doesn't the same risk exist with any software.
OSRM might justify their focus on OSS because they can't vette proprietary software, and fair enough, but as an end-user I just see that Open Source has risk and proprietary software does not. Even with all the best intentions, and with the honorable goal of "defending" OSS users from the evil clutches of lawyers, it still reeks of FUD.
My real concern is that 18 months ago it was ludicrous to even suggest that I should owe money to a company like SCO. Why should I be liable if some nasty programmer rips off code from SCO? But now we have OSRM loudly telling us "yes it's true you might owe money to random companies, just by the mere act of using software" and, lo and behold they conveniently will indemnify us for just a little bit of our money. So now Linux isn't "free" anymore. It's a little bit more expensive than it was 18 months ago. Oh sure, it's "optional", but it still reeks of FUD. First they spread the FUD and then they sell the indemnity that'll assuage your fear.
It looks, walks and quacks like a fricking scam. If it didn't have Perens behind it then everybody would be calling OSRM a con job. But OSRM was smart. They tricked (bribed?) some big Linux names to get in on the action. Maybe Perens even believes what he's saying. Hey, maybe it's even true, maybe you do need to be indemnified to use software, as foul as that idea might be. BUT IT STILL REEKS OF FUD.
I agree with your comments. This smells just like an attempt by proprietary companies to increase the TCO of Linux. I think Perens is the stooge: the best stooges are the people who believe what they're saying.
daveo0331 wrote (0.01). Brackets around a dollar amount is a standard accounting method for indicating a negative number.
It's only an "OSS need" in your imagination. There are 100s of OSS desktops. I'm currently using twm (don't ask) and last week I was using enlightenment (also don't ask). Neither looks anything like Windows. You're looking at one of the many OSS desktops, noting similarities to Windows, and generalising that all OSS desktops are clones of Windows. That's intellectual dishonesty on your part.
It's not even as if Windows invented their interface. It's an obvious amalgamation of UI ideas from NeXTSTEP, MacOS (classic), OS/2, CDE and several others. Saying that "OSS" (and you really mean KDE) is copying Windows is naive. It is rather that Windows and KDE are both copying from 30 years of GUI research and experimentation by 100s of companies.
Keh?
Hrm, I don't necessarily disagree, but I think there's a good chance your nightmare scenario wouldn't happen if Linux ruled the market. The reason is simple; competition.
There is no incentive for Microsoft to sell a secure product because what's your alternative? The cost of switching to another platform is much greater than just wearing the costs of patching and rebuilding infected boxes. So Microsoft does not have any pressure to make a better product.
But in the Linux market there are far too many distributions for any vendor to be complacent. If Red Hat starts getting infected then customers are going to say "make it secure or we'll switch to SuSe". There will be tremendous pressure on Red Hat to fix their distribution. And the open source nature of (most) Linux distributions means that there are no technological or legal barriers preventing Red Hat from "stealing" the best ideas from SuSe.
However there are two considerations that lend more weight to your nightmare scenario. The first is that it's becoming harder to switch from one Linux distribution to another. Schwartz recently called this the "proprietary nature" of Red Hat. I don't agree with his terminology (there is *nothing* proprietary about Red Hat) but I think his point was really about vendor lock-in. There is no denying that the Linux distributions are starting to create vendor lock-in. It's not very obvious right now but I see the signs.
The second is that the distributions don't actually write a lot of the software. They can only sell what the software writers produce. So Red Hat simply doesn't have the resources to make BIND secure (Hercules couldn't do that). Though even in this second case, there is competition in the free-software sphere of nameserver software. So Red Hat always has the option of switching to ddns or whatever.
I think overall, on reflection of your points, I would say that a world dominated by Linux would be more secure. It wouldn't be utopian, and there would still be incidents similar to Sasser, but I think it would pale in comparison to the damage caused by the monoculture created by a complacent Microsoft.
I can't comment on which is the best eBook reader because I've only ever used one.
I'm talking about a Palm, of course. It has a backlit screen, great battery life, fits into the palm of one hand, plenty of reader software, good integration with Linux, enough space for dozens of books, and it's cheap! You can get a second hand Palm Vx for $30. That means it's so cheap that you don't care if you lose/break it. So you can take it anywhere. Leave it in your pocket. Take it when you go travelling.
There might be better eBook readers out there but I'm happy with the Palm Vx.
A single vendor?
Limited hardware platform?
Yearly pay-for software upgrades?
Knowledge that Apple will screw you in the long run?
Inability to fix problems yourself? (Yes, MacOS X does have bugs too)
Lack of source code? Oh wait, better not include that one, because all the "I never use the source code anyway" worms will come out of the woodwork.
Throwing away your freedoms for the sake of convenience? Nah, definitely shouldn't include that one. That's a stupid flamewar just waiting to happen.
Paying for FreeBSD? Woah, now I'm treading on thin ice.