Well, I'm not saying Linux is attacking... just that it's threatening to Microsoft. Linux is still causing Microsoft to be on the defensive, in no small part simply because its simply experiencing a nice rate of growth in the market.
So, no, the developers of Linux aren't necessarily doing it with th goal of beating Microsoft, it's just kind of, sort of, kind of doing it as a side effect. Quoth Linus Torvalds: "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect."
Linus knows he's not into it to "destroy" Microsoft, but he does believe that it will merely as an effect of Linux beginning to thin out Microsoft's control of the market. A lot of cynics don't believe the year of Linux on the desktop has happened yet, I respectfully disagree, thanks to distributions like Ubuntu, MintOS, Freespire, and gOS, we've officially arrived.
To say nothing of Linux on the server, which has come a long time ago and it still going strong.
Getting Comcast to fess up that they're net neutrality Nazis (Godwin's law! Oh no!) is a lot like getting Darl McBride to confess about being a perjurer and a crook: We all know it, but they'll deny it to their grisly end.
It does sound nifty... but I'm not a big fan of Dreamworks. How many companies have been founded almost purely just to spite another company the way Dreamworks has?
I don't quite agree with that assessment... but after watching Bee Movie (Biggest waste of time I've ever had.), I began to think maybe Mr. Seinfeld has finally sold out. Apparently he just can't be very funny unless Larry David is helping him with his comedy.
Not sure they can without sounding more and more shrill. Some will believe the PR stunts, just as some take the Mojave campaign seriously. Linux is different to any product they ahve attacked. No product they can undercut, no product they can blundle
Bingo... the author of the first two Halloween Documents said it best. I'll paraphrase. The author recognized that none of the regular tactics would be very effective, spoke eerily of one tactic they haven't quite attempted, likely because the leak of the memo made it so that the open source community could have fortified itself against it. The phrase "decommoditize protocols." Embracing, extending, and extinguishing things that Linux would depend upon for its success. Because...
...because Linux, by its very nature cannot be killed directly. Microsoft buys out the entire project somehow, someone just forks the last open version and renames it and makes sure to divert far from the "MS" codebase. Microsoft can't target developers of Linux... because who specifically would they target that would have the effect of neutralizing Linux as an intellectual property? Bury Linus Torvalds? So? There's hundreds of thousands of developers not even directly involved with him. Crush Novell in one fell swoop. So? Novell is one of MANY corporate contributers, and all that will happen is harm done do Microsoft.
I am firm in the belief one reason Ballmer called the GPL "viral" is because Microsoft couldn't do what they did with BSD network code... that is, copy it line for line into something proprietary. GPL's derivative works clause threatens Microsoft's theft tactic.
Microsoft, in essence, is beginning to get backed into a corner by the open source community because it has found that it just can't squish them like a competing company or product that's based on the "tried and true" proprietary methods. In effect, the Cathedral is failing to destroy the Bazaar, but the Bazaar is beginning to nicely bring down the Cathedral.
True.. It doesn't stop Microsoft trying to bugger things up fro the inside, but it does make things way more complicated.
Which is now what Microsoft is attempting with the Novell deal that's in place. Divide the open source community. Again, this is mentioned as one potentially lethal strategy. Can't destroy the community? Get the community to destroy itself. And it won't work, largely because a great deal of OSS project *do* heave clear leadership... especially Linux with Linus Torvalds as the maintainer.
Perhaps a mighty distrust of Novell will result, but all that happens is a potential fork of SuSE, as opposed to anything crashing.
I bet my next rice krispie block that the MPAA/RIAA are going to raise a hissy fit over this. Their entire business plan seems to resolve around ripping away the rights of the consumer under the guise of "anti-piracy."
Maybe it isn't so much reliance on a mindless infringement detection program as groups like the MPAA and RIAA seem to absolutely loathe the concept of fair use. Maybe the lawyers are actually looking for a scapegoat.
But do the people who are giving the flak actually buy the Novell support contracts? Unless I'm mistaken, Suse has a community version and a corporate version. If they lose users in the community, it may be embarrassing, but not damaging as such. And if they can get more customers in mixed environments to switch to Suse, then they have made a good choice. Problem is, I don't think being blessed by Microsoft is as big a sales point as they thought it would be.
I believe there are two "editions," SuSE and OpenSuSE, but I could be wrong (I don't use SuSE anyway.) I'm not sure exactly what sales point they were trying to make to any informed customers: "We fell for Patent FUD" doesn't strike me as a great selling point. Though I suppose to a naive executive... Novell pitching SuSE as a "Microsoft Approved" Linux might seem appealing... except I'm in the belief that most CTO's of companies are well-informed enough to know that seeking the "Microsoft Seal of Approval" in Linux is a pointless thing. At first I also had to think about what perks Microsoft would have to get people to use "MS" Linux. Then it hit me, it's the support contracts. The steps:
1. Spread the patent FUD around like peanut butter. Make vague claims and never reveal the patents, which are likely to either be irrelevant or almost impossible to uphold in court.
2. Start calling up the big Linux companies and making the threats a little more... present.
3. Big Linux company falls for Patent FUD and signs the agreement, supposedly getting a great deal of money for signing it. (Novell got a lot, from what I remember.)
4. Take over official commercial support channels for the "taken" Linux, making sure they definitely charge money for the service.
5. Outsource to India to lower the costs of the support.
6. ???
7. Profit!
Step 6 could involve anything from contributing code/development to "their" Linux or merely hosting an annual barbecue on the Redmond campus, bring your own chairs. Don't leave them alone with Ballmer.
Lacky or not, it has been used as a propaganda tool by Microsoft despite Novell's insistence in press releases that they don't have any code covered by any named MS patent. It is unclear what Microsoft could actually do to harm Linux via Novell that would not have a very big risk of blowing up in their face.
Very little things could happen that won't blow up in Microsoft's face with this approach to Linux. I think what Microsoft was hoping for was getting people to avoid a great deal of Linux distros in favor of distros Microsoft can potentially get money from. They WANT customers to say "X distribution looks nice... but it isn't legal against Microsoft's IP, we'd better go with Y distribution instead, its safe because Microsoft approves it."
As I've said before, the problem is Microsoft underestimated the knowledge of the folks likely to be in charge of deciding between X distribution and Y distribution or just Windows, which Microsoft would naturally prefer. Most companies who consider Linux have probably been watching Linux for some time and believe that Microsoft is doing what it does best: Trying to get its hooks in for some meat. Xandros and Novell fell for the patent FUD, but companies like Canonical and Red Hat didn't. Linus Torvalds himself told Microsoft to "put up or shut up."
Microsoft is now faced with a big problem. They like to FUD, but if they FUD Linux in general, they have the risk of fallout of their FUD hitting the Linux distributions they want to be sold, like SuSE. Maybe Microsoft, in light of this, might start targetting specific distributions with extensive FUD. Red Hat and Ubuntu are likely targets, both being threats in the server and desktop market, respectively, and didn't even entertain the notion of signing a cross-patent deal with Microsoft.
Now we have the GPLv3, which essentially outlaws those kinds of deals. Microsoft can't effectively target Linux distributors anymore without running the risk of running afoul of the GPL.
That and Red Hat seems to be a bit smarter than Novell. They knew despite public perception of Novell getting gobs of $$$ from Microsoft in their cross-patent deal, they'd lose in the long term.
It's the lesson of $5 now vs. $10 in a year, except Microsoft isn't offering the $10 in a year, only more threats.
Except providing Silverlight itself to Linux wouldn't lock people into Windows.
What I see instead is Microsoft helping Moonlight and Mono development in the hopes of torpedoing them in the not too distant future, possibly by prodcing a new version of Silverlight and NOT releasing any specifications on its new features and making sure any Silverlight-producing software only produces those new Moonlight incompatible features. Then Microsoft starts spouting FUD at them about patent violations, despite having aided them before.
As a programmer, I've always made a point of avoiding "convenience" technologies, such as Java,.net, or Mono.
Java is bloated, slow and unstable. It saves the programmer a lot of hell for porting and a handful of other things, but it royally screws over the end user who has to put up with a runtime environment and all the MAJOR flaws of Java.
.net always struck me as being buggy garbage, and it's not portable, which means only Windows users get the benefit of using the software. On top of that, I'm pretty sure it isn't that hard just to hand-code the functions you need that.net "helpfully" provides.
Mono is much the same way, although portable, but it also has one major disadvantage going towards it: It's contaminated IP. Knowing how likely it is that Microsoft, despite "opening" the specifications for.net, is very likely to sue or threaten to sue the tar out of anybody stupid enough to think they'll be safe using any Microsoft "standard."
This is why many developers are too afraid to trust both of Microsoft's Shared Source licenses. One is laced with an NDA, so it's already a boner, but the second "open source" license is non-commercial only and many believe it is too risky to trust for the same reason I don't trust Mono, people have seen the IP, now Microsoft might have leverage to start making claims it was copied IP.
True, but I remain persistently suspicious. Microsoft has been known to pretend to be playing nice, but I've seen too many of Microsoft's "partners" get run over by Microsoft for me to believe that Microsoft is actually genuinely looking out for any interests beyond their own.
I would NOT be surprised if I would see Microsoft do something to ultimately bury Novell. When I read the Halloween Documents for myself, I find it odd Microsoft would be any more genuine about supporting Linux than they were about OS/2 when they were doing the initial NT development.
Don't forget also the means of which Microsoft got this "deal" with Novell: Threatening everyone with patent litigation over 235 patents. No, sir, I think Microsoft isn't suddenly playing nice. Pretending, certainly, but actually doing it? No.
!!! Well, that is very good to know! Now I don't have to do it the "hard" way. I remember back in Gutsy when flashplayer-nonfree wouldn't pass the checksum. Downright irritating, that was.
Indeed, but I think the flying toaster concept has left the After Dark software. I noticed a nicely rendered OpenGL flying toaster screensaver on my Ubuntu install. It's so fun to watch. Maybe I should play "Rise of the Valkyries" next time I see that screensaver.:P
Well... that approach only seems to work with Gutsy and earlier, which use Firefox 2. Hardy, on the other hand, uses Firefox 3 Beta... 5, I think. (Though after a while, updates pushed FF3 to Release Candidate and ultimately the final release. I believe 8.04.1 comes with FF3 Final pre-installed as opposed to Beta 5.) nspluginwrapper, unfortunately, was developed for FF2, though it works fine with FF3, the problem is that the command (sudo nspluginwrapper -i/complete/path/to/libflashplayer.so) placed the wrapped plugin in the obsolete FF2 plugin directory which wouldn't be used in Hardy with FF3, which used a slightly different directory for plugins in Linux: Instead of/usr/lib/firefox/plugins I've found that I had to copy (Or symlink) the wrapped plugin over to/usr/lib/firefox-3.0/plugins to get it working in Hardy unless one were to install Firefox 2.
Flash Beta 10, as I said previously, is a little more involved, but the HOWTO found ont he Ubuntu Forums was damn easy to follow, and when I used the Adobe Flash 10 testing applet, I liked what I saw.
My experience has been far from pleasant. Usually after having to fight like hell. Getting many Java apps to work required me to put the Medibuntu repositories to get a working Java VM on there, otherwise I get a case where Java apps couldn't find my Java to segfaults every time I attempted to run the application.
IcedTea was worse, I actually had to compile it from source to get any usage out of it as a plugin or as a runtime altogether. Even after that point, I learned that IcedTea was pure crap anyway.
Currently, though, I don't have any Java installed, because I have no use for it. I don't Azureus or Frostwire anymore, and I rarely actually go to Java websites, and don't care about them when I do. Java is too much work for me to bother.
Getting flash to work is easy when you know how, on 64-bit Linux. Download the tarball from Adobe, extract the.so (Don't waste your time on the installer, the installer refuses to run for any architecture other than i386.) and put it somewhere safe, run nsplugin, run to/usr/lib/firefox/plugins and copy the wrapped plugin to/usr/lib/firefox-3.0/plugins, restart any running FF, it works.
A little more involved for Flash 10 Beta, though, luckily it was easy to find a good HOWTO on the Ubuntu Forums.
My bad. Still, I have my suspicions about how long it will last before Microsoft really does pull something. I'd advise Moonlight *and( Mono developers to be careful, because I worry that Microsoft is roping these people in in the efforts to crush many open source projects.
My fear is related to the fear of "contamination" affiliated with Microsoft's so-called open source licenses, both of them. If I were a smart open source developer, and I would like to think that I am, I'd avoid viewing a line of MS source, programming with Mono, or even touching Moonlight with a long stick for fear of IP contamination.
They'll give the Moonlight folks a lot of things... then they'll release Silverlight 2 and will not help Moonlight with that. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that Microsoft EVER does anything in good faith. History shows that they're not worthy of that kind of trust.
Apple is rather so-so for open source, but there's a lot more companies doing more than Apple is likely to do. And, naturally, if you're like RMS, (Which I hope not, RMS, while his goals are good, strikes me as overzealous.) Apple doesn't behave like it supports free (libre) software.
I'd be happier with Apple if not for exploiting code that uses the overly permissive BSD license. I like the GPL because I can rest assured that anyone legitimate can use my code, but not suddenly close it and make a tidy profit off my work.
Though, I could be wrong, Mac OS X uses BASH (Though I doubt many Mac users ever actually use it.), which I believe, and correct me if I am wrong on this, is actually GPL. But I haven't heard of any contributions from Apple to BASH... again, I could be seriously flawed in my thinking here.
Don't get me started on Java. Especially on 64-bit platforms, especially 64-bit Linux platforms. If you thought Flash worked badly on 64-bit Linux, you've never even attempted Java on the same. It's easier to get Flash working on Firefox 3 on 64-bit Linux than it is for Java. In the end, if I ever decide I need Java (Which I do not.) I can just install a 32-bit browser, then it works with a little less cajoling.
The patent threats are irrelevant to Moonlight, especially since Microsoft is actually "helping" Moonlight.
And, to be honest, I think this article is overestimating how badly Flash runs on Linux. I'm happily running Flash 10 Beta with no problems, thank you.
Since Microsoft doesn't have any actual control of Novell, despite alarmists on this site blubbering contrariwise, they have no control over SVRX. None. Zilch. Zip. People need to quit acting like Novell is suddenly a Microsoft lackey company, when all this agreement is is essentially not to sue the tar out of each other.
Oh wait... this is/.
Anybody who enters in an agreement with Microsoft MUST be working for them!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm not saying Linux is attacking... just that it's threatening to Microsoft. Linux is still causing Microsoft to be on the defensive, in no small part simply because its simply experiencing a nice rate of growth in the market.
So, no, the developers of Linux aren't necessarily doing it with th goal of beating Microsoft, it's just kind of, sort of, kind of doing it as a side effect. Quoth Linus Torvalds: "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect."
Linus knows he's not into it to "destroy" Microsoft, but he does believe that it will merely as an effect of Linux beginning to thin out Microsoft's control of the market. A lot of cynics don't believe the year of Linux on the desktop has happened yet, I respectfully disagree, thanks to distributions like Ubuntu, MintOS, Freespire, and gOS, we've officially arrived.
To say nothing of Linux on the server, which has come a long time ago and it still going strong.
Getting Comcast to fess up that they're net neutrality Nazis (Godwin's law! Oh no!) is a lot like getting Darl McBride to confess about being a perjurer and a crook: We all know it, but they'll deny it to their grisly end.
It does sound nifty... but I'm not a big fan of Dreamworks. How many companies have been founded almost purely just to spite another company the way Dreamworks has?
I don't quite agree with that assessment... but after watching Bee Movie (Biggest waste of time I've ever had.), I began to think maybe Mr. Seinfeld has finally sold out. Apparently he just can't be very funny unless Larry David is helping him with his comedy.
Bingo... the author of the first two Halloween Documents said it best. I'll paraphrase. The author recognized that none of the regular tactics would be very effective, spoke eerily of one tactic they haven't quite attempted, likely because the leak of the memo made it so that the open source community could have fortified itself against it. The phrase "decommoditize protocols." Embracing, extending, and extinguishing things that Linux would depend upon for its success. Because...
...because Linux, by its very nature cannot be killed directly. Microsoft buys out the entire project somehow, someone just forks the last open version and renames it and makes sure to divert far from the "MS" codebase. Microsoft can't target developers of Linux... because who specifically would they target that would have the effect of neutralizing Linux as an intellectual property? Bury Linus Torvalds? So? There's hundreds of thousands of developers not even directly involved with him. Crush Novell in one fell swoop. So? Novell is one of MANY corporate contributers, and all that will happen is harm done do Microsoft.
I am firm in the belief one reason Ballmer called the GPL "viral" is because Microsoft couldn't do what they did with BSD network code... that is, copy it line for line into something proprietary. GPL's derivative works clause threatens Microsoft's theft tactic.
Microsoft, in essence, is beginning to get backed into a corner by the open source community because it has found that it just can't squish them like a competing company or product that's based on the "tried and true" proprietary methods. In effect, the Cathedral is failing to destroy the Bazaar, but the Bazaar is beginning to nicely bring down the Cathedral.
Which is now what Microsoft is attempting with the Novell deal that's in place. Divide the open source community. Again, this is mentioned as one potentially lethal strategy. Can't destroy the community? Get the community to destroy itself. And it won't work, largely because a great deal of OSS project *do* heave clear leadership... especially Linux with Linus Torvalds as the maintainer.
Perhaps a mighty distrust of Novell will result, but all that happens is a potential fork of SuSE, as opposed to anything crashing.
It's not really helping that we have the DMCA, unfortunately.
Because laws such as the DMCA are biased toward Big Business, like everything else in the US.
I bet my next rice krispie block that the MPAA/RIAA are going to raise a hissy fit over this. Their entire business plan seems to resolve around ripping away the rights of the consumer under the guise of "anti-piracy."
Maybe it isn't so much reliance on a mindless infringement detection program as groups like the MPAA and RIAA seem to absolutely loathe the concept of fair use. Maybe the lawyers are actually looking for a scapegoat.
I believe there are two "editions," SuSE and OpenSuSE, but I could be wrong (I don't use SuSE anyway.) I'm not sure exactly what sales point they were trying to make to any informed customers: "We fell for Patent FUD" doesn't strike me as a great selling point. Though I suppose to a naive executive... Novell pitching SuSE as a "Microsoft Approved" Linux might seem appealing... except I'm in the belief that most CTO's of companies are well-informed enough to know that seeking the "Microsoft Seal of Approval" in Linux is a pointless thing. At first I also had to think about what perks Microsoft would have to get people to use "MS" Linux. Then it hit me, it's the support contracts. The steps:
1. Spread the patent FUD around like peanut butter. Make vague claims and never reveal the patents, which are likely to either be irrelevant or almost impossible to uphold in court.
2. Start calling up the big Linux companies and making the threats a little more... present.
3. Big Linux company falls for Patent FUD and signs the agreement, supposedly getting a great deal of money for signing it. (Novell got a lot, from what I remember.)
4. Take over official commercial support channels for the "taken" Linux, making sure they definitely charge money for the service.
5. Outsource to India to lower the costs of the support.
6. ???
7. Profit!
Step 6 could involve anything from contributing code/development to "their" Linux or merely hosting an annual barbecue on the Redmond campus, bring your own chairs. Don't leave them alone with Ballmer.
Very little things could happen that won't blow up in Microsoft's face with this approach to Linux. I think what Microsoft was hoping for was getting people to avoid a great deal of Linux distros in favor of distros Microsoft can potentially get money from. They WANT customers to say "X distribution looks nice... but it isn't legal against Microsoft's IP, we'd better go with Y distribution instead, its safe because Microsoft approves it."
As I've said before, the problem is Microsoft underestimated the knowledge of the folks likely to be in charge of deciding between X distribution and Y distribution or just Windows, which Microsoft would naturally prefer. Most companies who consider Linux have probably been watching Linux for some time and believe that Microsoft is doing what it does best: Trying to get its hooks in for some meat. Xandros and Novell fell for the patent FUD, but companies like Canonical and Red Hat didn't. Linus Torvalds himself told Microsoft to "put up or shut up."
Microsoft is now faced with a big problem. They like to FUD, but if they FUD Linux in general, they have the risk of fallout of their FUD hitting the Linux distributions they want to be sold, like SuSE. Maybe Microsoft, in light of this, might start targetting specific distributions with extensive FUD. Red Hat and Ubuntu are likely targets, both being threats in the server and desktop market, respectively, and didn't even entertain the notion of signing a cross-patent deal with Microsoft.
Now we have the GPLv3, which essentially outlaws those kinds of deals. Microsoft can't effectively target Linux distributors anymore without running the risk of running afoul of the GPL.
Indeed. People have actually been giving Novell a little more flak than it deserves, despite falling for the patent FUD.
My favorite example is how people seem to think Novell is some sort of MS lackey, despite no real evidence Novell actually is under any MS control.
That and Red Hat seems to be a bit smarter than Novell. They knew despite public perception of Novell getting gobs of $$$ from Microsoft in their cross-patent deal, they'd lose in the long term.
It's the lesson of $5 now vs. $10 in a year, except Microsoft isn't offering the $10 in a year, only more threats.
Except providing Silverlight itself to Linux wouldn't lock people into Windows.
.net, or Mono.
.net always struck me as being buggy garbage, and it's not portable, which means only Windows users get the benefit of using the software. On top of that, I'm pretty sure it isn't that hard just to hand-code the functions you need that .net "helpfully" provides.
.net, is very likely to sue or threaten to sue the tar out of anybody stupid enough to think they'll be safe using any Microsoft "standard."
What I see instead is Microsoft helping Moonlight and Mono development in the hopes of torpedoing them in the not too distant future, possibly by prodcing a new version of Silverlight and NOT releasing any specifications on its new features and making sure any Silverlight-producing software only produces those new Moonlight incompatible features. Then Microsoft starts spouting FUD at them about patent violations, despite having aided them before.
As a programmer, I've always made a point of avoiding "convenience" technologies, such as Java,
Java is bloated, slow and unstable. It saves the programmer a lot of hell for porting and a handful of other things, but it royally screws over the end user who has to put up with a runtime environment and all the MAJOR flaws of Java.
Mono is much the same way, although portable, but it also has one major disadvantage going towards it: It's contaminated IP. Knowing how likely it is that Microsoft, despite "opening" the specifications for
This is why many developers are too afraid to trust both of Microsoft's Shared Source licenses. One is laced with an NDA, so it's already a boner, but the second "open source" license is non-commercial only and many believe it is too risky to trust for the same reason I don't trust Mono, people have seen the IP, now Microsoft might have leverage to start making claims it was copied IP.
True, but I remain persistently suspicious. Microsoft has been known to pretend to be playing nice, but I've seen too many of Microsoft's "partners" get run over by Microsoft for me to believe that Microsoft is actually genuinely looking out for any interests beyond their own.
I would NOT be surprised if I would see Microsoft do something to ultimately bury Novell. When I read the Halloween Documents for myself, I find it odd Microsoft would be any more genuine about supporting Linux than they were about OS/2 when they were doing the initial NT development.
Don't forget also the means of which Microsoft got this "deal" with Novell: Threatening everyone with patent litigation over 235 patents. No, sir, I think Microsoft isn't suddenly playing nice. Pretending, certainly, but actually doing it? No.
!!! Well, that is very good to know! Now I don't have to do it the "hard" way. I remember back in Gutsy when flashplayer-nonfree wouldn't pass the checksum. Downright irritating, that was.
Indeed, but I think the flying toaster concept has left the After Dark software. I noticed a nicely rendered OpenGL flying toaster screensaver on my Ubuntu install. It's so fun to watch. Maybe I should play "Rise of the Valkyries" next time I see that screensaver. :P
Well... that approach only seems to work with Gutsy and earlier, which use Firefox 2. Hardy, on the other hand, uses Firefox 3 Beta... 5, I think. (Though after a while, updates pushed FF3 to Release Candidate and ultimately the final release. I believe 8.04.1 comes with FF3 Final pre-installed as opposed to Beta 5.) nspluginwrapper, unfortunately, was developed for FF2, though it works fine with FF3, the problem is that the command (sudo nspluginwrapper -i /complete/path/to/libflashplayer.so) placed the wrapped plugin in the obsolete FF2 plugin directory which wouldn't be used in Hardy with FF3, which used a slightly different directory for plugins in Linux: Instead of /usr/lib/firefox/plugins I've found that I had to copy (Or symlink) the wrapped plugin over to /usr/lib/firefox-3.0/plugins to get it working in Hardy unless one were to install Firefox 2.
Flash Beta 10, as I said previously, is a little more involved, but the HOWTO found ont he Ubuntu Forums was damn easy to follow, and when I used the Adobe Flash 10 testing applet, I liked what I saw.
My experience has been far from pleasant. Usually after having to fight like hell. Getting many Java apps to work required me to put the Medibuntu repositories to get a working Java VM on there, otherwise I get a case where Java apps couldn't find my Java to segfaults every time I attempted to run the application.
.so (Don't waste your time on the installer, the installer refuses to run for any architecture other than i386.) and put it somewhere safe, run nsplugin, run to /usr/lib/firefox/plugins and copy the wrapped plugin to /usr/lib/firefox-3.0/plugins, restart any running FF, it works.
IcedTea was worse, I actually had to compile it from source to get any usage out of it as a plugin or as a runtime altogether. Even after that point, I learned that IcedTea was pure crap anyway.
Currently, though, I don't have any Java installed, because I have no use for it. I don't Azureus or Frostwire anymore, and I rarely actually go to Java websites, and don't care about them when I do. Java is too much work for me to bother.
Getting flash to work is easy when you know how, on 64-bit Linux. Download the tarball from Adobe, extract the
A little more involved for Flash 10 Beta, though, luckily it was easy to find a good HOWTO on the Ubuntu Forums.
My bad. Still, I have my suspicions about how long it will last before Microsoft really does pull something. I'd advise Moonlight *and( Mono developers to be careful, because I worry that Microsoft is roping these people in in the efforts to crush many open source projects.
My fear is related to the fear of "contamination" affiliated with Microsoft's so-called open source licenses, both of them. If I were a smart open source developer, and I would like to think that I am, I'd avoid viewing a line of MS source, programming with Mono, or even touching Moonlight with a long stick for fear of IP contamination.
Funny, I don't have any issues whatsoever with Hardy or FF3. Maybe your computer just sucks.
They'll give the Moonlight folks a lot of things... then they'll release Silverlight 2 and will not help Moonlight with that. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that Microsoft EVER does anything in good faith. History shows that they're not worthy of that kind of trust.
Apple is rather so-so for open source, but there's a lot more companies doing more than Apple is likely to do. And, naturally, if you're like RMS, (Which I hope not, RMS, while his goals are good, strikes me as overzealous.) Apple doesn't behave like it supports free (libre) software.
I'd be happier with Apple if not for exploiting code that uses the overly permissive BSD license. I like the GPL because I can rest assured that anyone legitimate can use my code, but not suddenly close it and make a tidy profit off my work.
Though, I could be wrong, Mac OS X uses BASH (Though I doubt many Mac users ever actually use it.), which I believe, and correct me if I am wrong on this, is actually GPL. But I haven't heard of any contributions from Apple to BASH... again, I could be seriously flawed in my thinking here.
Don't get me started on Java. Especially on 64-bit platforms, especially 64-bit Linux platforms. If you thought Flash worked badly on 64-bit Linux, you've never even attempted Java on the same. It's easier to get Flash working on Firefox 3 on 64-bit Linux than it is for Java. In the end, if I ever decide I need Java (Which I do not.) I can just install a 32-bit browser, then it works with a little less cajoling.
The patent threats are irrelevant to Moonlight, especially since Microsoft is actually "helping" Moonlight.
And, to be honest, I think this article is overestimating how badly Flash runs on Linux. I'm happily running Flash 10 Beta with no problems, thank you.
An interesting assertion, although incorrect.
/.
Since Microsoft doesn't have any actual control of Novell, despite alarmists on this site blubbering contrariwise, they have no control over SVRX. None. Zilch. Zip. People need to quit acting like Novell is suddenly a Microsoft lackey company, when all this agreement is is essentially not to sue the tar out of each other.
Oh wait... this is
Anybody who enters in an agreement with Microsoft MUST be working for them!