I'm curious, it seems as that paid advertisements have to be noted as such. Look at the political ads where they have to state at the end (this has been a paid advertisement), or infomercials....is there a law governing advertising masqurading as something else, as this would appear to be? Looks like I'm going goggle...too bad, always liked altavista.
I think we can all agree that this essay is a load of crap...but I think that we need to be carefull of having a knee-jerk response when stuff like this comes out. Whenever something criticising linux/*bsd FSF or whatever comes out, people jump all over it. As a community, it would be better to sit back, analyze what other have to say, and attempt to address potential weeknesses. Even essays such as this can have one or two things worthy of consideration, if only to determine what type of logic underlies the criticism. I thought that these people brough up two points vaguely worth of consideration.
A. Long term viability. Lets face it, the current boom is a fad masking over a long-lasting tradition. But this fad is bringing in valuable support. In the public eye, Linux will fail if it falls back to being a geek toy, sure, it can continue on indefinetly in that manner, but the public doesn't care about that. They only care if it affects them. Maintaining a broader user base, and Linux is heading for now, is important for Linux to become something other than a server OS (I think the classic FSF model works fine for server), but the variety of software needed for desktop software by nature demands wider support, and this support comes from users. Assuming one wants Linux to become a desktop platform in addition to a server platform, maintanence of this broaduer user and vendor base is necessary,and at this point, as this support depends largely on hype, a long-term solution is needed. (note: contrary to many, hype isn't all bad, I think it helps reach a large amount of geek-inclined, tinkers or idealists who other wise would never of heard of this. Their not the tradational linux users, but hey, the more the merrier.
B. There is a slight contridiction in stateing that software should be free, than stating that it is ok to make money through support, education and the like. When one thinks about this, it means that software is only free to those who don't need support, IE geeks (most of the time). There is a dicotomy that needs to be resolved between "free" code and the ability to make money...the current model just doesn't hack it, the free except for other things...either its free or it isn't. I personally would like to see a case where all vital tools are available oss, ie, OS, server tools, office suite, web browser, and the like, whereas more eclectic things may remain proprietory, such as games, weird niche apps, whatever. Propriatory software does have a place, we just need to remove the issue of its closedness from being a barrier to new entries who may not be able to afford the cost of propriatory software, such as kids, new companies and organizations, people in underdeveloped areas and the like. This would level the playing field, but still allow for commercial activity.
On a completely random note, I think that contrary to these people, OSS is a perfect example of a free market. The notion of a free market implies that there are many providers and customers are free to give their support (i.e. usually money) to the one that they feel is best. Theoretically, this leads to the best product winning, which we all know is not true. We do not and have not for some time lived in a free market economy, we live in a oligopoly, where a few large providers are able to control the market. This is not free market, the average consumer is not forced to decide between competing products, and the best product does not always, or even ever, win. OSS brings this back, replacing the resource exchange of money with the exhance of ideas, support and the like. Yeah, its messy, thats the way the free market was intended to be. Current defenders of the free-market are defending something that, on a large scale, died long ago and are acting as intellectual pimps for companies.
whew.....getting off of soapbox now.
Brian
BTW: I know of analytical firms/thinktanks that take oss very seriously, its just the better ones don't make alot of hype or follow hype. Their view of OSS's future seems to be positive, though not leading to world domination.
In any case, my brothers and sisters, it is time to rise up in arms. If this is a hoax, I'm not laughing. If it is not, I'm really not laughing. If this thing is real, them we really need to show the offending party something about the value of free speach.
Not true, look at the breakup of AT&T in the 80's, the little subunits instantly tried to start to kill each other....would have been even more interesting if most of them actually competed with each other, as they do now...
Was anyone actually at the Gnome launch who can confirm what happened.
I personally think that it probably be called GNU Linux.......gnu components make up a huge part of the OS, which goes beyond just the kernal. I don't actually call it that though, as the linux name is what has developed, and it is hard to change once in place....also GNU Linux sounds funny. Put RMS's and GNU's massive contributions should be acknowledged in some way.
This is a problem that will probably occur repeatadly. I think two of the biggest factors contributing to open source software is ideology and need. This ideology can easily lead to arrogance, simply because of the strengh of these views that usually develops. This arrogance, however, is dangerous in a community that is depended on other as the linux community is. Face it, most linux user are dependent in a small way on most other linux users to develop new code, work out bugs....and stuff like that. It is what make the community neat, no one use is an island unto him or her self (horrible quote, but appropiate). When I picked up my first linux distro at the local software store, I was virtually attacked my helpful geeks. Many other nameless ones helped me learn how to actually use the darn thing. Like any community, new blood must keep coming in to keep things mixing, to add new ideas, new perspectives. The traditionally helpfull, open nature of the linux community is the strongest enabler to this process, and arrogance is a flaw that will turn off many. Pride in ones achievments, ideology and whatnot is one thing...but elavating that to the point where you position yourself above other is completely contrary to the whole point, and it will be a huge flaw if not controled. I think most people on/. and elseware are generally sane, respectfull and open, with just a few bad, loud, seeds making alot of noise. But we all need to make an effort to keep that openness available to all, else the entire point of the software is lost. As yet another horrible cliche, I leave you with a thought "open source, closed minds"....dont work does it. Everyone needs to chill just a bit. Dont abandon you guns; defend your views, just do it politiely, calmly and with at least polite respect for other, even inane, opinions. Elsewise we are just a huge, geeky mob.
I hate to agree, but I agree. Like many others here, I cut my teeth on slackware....a kindly little geek at a previous job took me under his wing and coached me though the rough spots. But I recently switched to Red Hat....I like the feel of Slackware better, and it seems to make more logical sense overall, but it was simply too hard to maintain. I don't have hours to futz around with the system....I barely have time to play with the civ beta. While manually loading and compialing everything is "purer" and more preferable in many ways, it is simply too clumsy. Pkgtool is great, but no files are relased using its format, so its next to useless. I had nightmares simply thinking about having to compile and install everything required for Gnome. Makes me sad though....Slackware has the right "feel" to it....I sorting out Red Hat, but....theres nothing like the real thing. Would it be possible for someone to grab slackware, update all the necessary librarys, add support for debs and rpm, and rerelease it, kindof like how Mandrake did with redhats distro....have a slackware release, and then a slackware for slackers...maybe. Dont know.
Somehow I really doubt that the record industry is going to get behind this. The hole industry is based around having to get 5 different cd's to get five songs you like. Simply put, most albums are loaded with schlock with acouple good songs mixed in. They would simply loose too many sales to this. It would be efficient, it would be nice, it would make sense.....hence it ain't going to happen. Granted, there are some albums out there that is mostly good stuff, but they are few and far between.......
There are some good points to the BSD license, I just really don't have that much faith in most companies to not ruthlessly exploit it. The GPL is not perfect either....mainly in that it goes to the other extreme in an attempt to protect the code base from fragmentation/propriatoryness/exploitation,and other bad stuff. The question is where to draw the line. The GPL is about as save as one can get in terms of preventing fragmenting the code base, but in this protection it very likely could discourage some from developing under it. On the other hand the BSD license, while providing more freedom, doesn't (IMHO) protect the ability for that freedom to continue. Its a balancing act. I really would like to see a standardized third path that would allow for commercial development but not endanger the code base. In an ideal world, everything would be GPL. But this ain't an ideal world, there is much good software that is being developed for commercial purposes (following a more traditional model of business, the Red Hat model would not work for many types of software), it would be nice if they could play nicely with the GPL stuff. At this point, I think the safest bet is either GPL,LGPL,BSD or pure propiatory (my spelling suck,forgive me) like VMware or WordPerfect. The products add much value to the platform an, while the add nothing lasting to the code base, they provide functionality in the immediate sense, which is also good. Its the weird middle ground that needs work.
Tell you the truth, I don't know, as I installed the whole darn mess. I believe you would at least need the gnome-core package...which I believe actually contains the code for panel, but I am unsure of how that depends on the other aspects of Gnome. Anyone else know...this would be usefull just because the Gnome install process is such a mess....entirely too many files to download, keep track of, and the like.
Yes, but there is nothing mandating that those changes had to be made public. Look at Apple, sure they released many of the modifications that they made to the BSD design, but they didn't have to. The BSD license, while enabling companies and organizations to protect their interest, also has a problem in that it could easily lead to fragmentation as the design gets modified and the changes are not released back. You start getting propriatory versions. This doesn't always happen, the FreeBSD people are proof of this, but it can, hence mine concern.
I found Gnome too unstable also, which made me sad because I prefered the feel of it to KDE. I like KDE, and support it, but its just a tad to slow for me....gnome on the other hand is fast and has, IMHO, a nicer interface, but its install is freaking insane and its not stable.
One thing that I found that is kindof nifty, on my system at least, is to run individual gnome components under windowmaker. I have my windowmaker autolaunch panel and gmc on launch, and for some reason this is far more stable than using gnome-session was. had no problems with it, but I have just been using it for acouple days. That way I can still keep the nifty gpager and set up some drawers for common apps, but keep most of the advantages of windowmaker. granted, this strips out alot off the niftyness of gnome..but hey.
This simply goes back to one of the fundemental problems the Linux/open source/free software movement faces...in involvement of comercial organizations or not. Most commercial entities will not go for the GPL, yet have valuable contributions to make. On the other hand, this license proliferation is just mucking the whole thing up, and licenses like the BSD license allow the code to be exploited too easily without return to the community. IMHO, we need to have just three licenses, the GPL, LGPL, and a third one which will make commercial entities more cofortable yet still enable it to work with GPL software and its devotes...something like a NQFPL (not quite free public license). make no pretense to be compelety free, but yet still works with the movement. In the NCL license defense, I think the two year expiration period is a decent idea...but, simply put, we have too freeking many licenses running around, their going to become meaningless soon. Perhaps dialogue on a third license of non-commercial origin, but with commercial entites in mind, could be developed. I would love to see FSF and OSI involved in this...an attempt to build consensus.
Yeah, I saw that....that wasnt what I was worried about. Basically some people were saying that the Linux version would ship with the regular retail version on march 16....which give us about, well, they would have already pressed it, the beta tests would be for a patch. Others have said that the linux version would be coming latter. I don't know....I would check their site, but.
Got the email this morning...damn it made my day. But yeah, looks like they already sent it out.
In regards to an earlier post regarding the linux version being on the shipping cd going out the 16th.....is this true? Its going to be rather hard betatesting a product in a few days.
For once, I have actually seen some intelligent discussion regarding Katz...unfortunetly, it seems as if the case against Katz is limited to his occasional spelling and grammer error and the nature of his writtings. To the first, I say wahhhhh, quit your whining...online publishing, even from the most reputable sources, has errors, its the nature of the beast, its all about getting stuff up in a timely manner, errors slip through. I for one would rather have writting with some errors than have it edited into sterility like most mainstream writting.
As for the content, people have recited the "news for nerds" mantra over and over again. I challange anyone to provide a solid definition of what that is. How come Star Wars fits but Katz mussings don't? Katz is not focusing on on the technical issues...thats fine....he is focusing on more abstract issues regarding the OSS phenomena than the purely technical, it might not always be relevent, but it is important....find me any one event, community or movement that did not have people who stepped back from the immediate goals of said group and looked at some bigger issues. This is vitally important to any movement it it wants to survive. Katz might not be technical, but he does seem to understand some of the deeper roots of what makes oss tick.
And about community, again, OSS/free software/Linux requires all types of people, not just coders or documentors. I personally, consider myself part of the community. I am technically oriented, done my time in tech support and all, but according to the average definition of what a OSS person is, I do not qualify. Why? I couldn't code my way out of a box, I don't have the time to document material, and, in short, I don't add anything original myself. Most human relations are of this sort, not of original creation but of partisipation in the project nonetheless. What do we do, submit bug reports, actually use the stuff being produced, show others the wonders of what computers can really do if one becomes literate in them and in general think about what the hell is going on. Its not coding, but it is still important to the survival of the movement. I'm sure there are tons of of other people like me who read/. and are otherwise members of the "community"....Katz draws heat because he is actually bold enough to try to contibute in his own manner, more power to him. Others, including myself, will hopefully begin following and making further contributions.
I remember my first attempts to install Linux, which failed miserably. As soon as I walked into the Linux area of the local software store looking at the distros, I was attacked by helpful geeks. That attempt failed, but latter other geeks took me under their wing and showed me the ropes to the point where I can now take care of myself. I'm no guru, but I am competent, and I'm repeating that process with others. Linux desperetly needs this in order to keep new people from coming in and from becoming evermore closed off, a static, closed society of geeks. How can we have open software and closed minds? My, that sounded cheezy, but the sentiment is there.
OK, I've spoken my peace, at least for now...I am actually vaguely toying with the idea of putting up a forum based site dedicated towards dealing with some of the "meta" issues of geekdom....the philosophy of geekdom, if you will. I'm sure many would not be interested in it, but it still might play a role in OSS. Does anyone out there have any interest in contributing to this?
Well, I sure you certainly have a better view of the situation there than my, purely academic one....there did seem to be some strenghs to Yugoslavias methods, they might not of worked, but I think they were at least interesting and worthy of study. The best, although still warped, implementation of Marx yet, the other counties just mangled Marx. And from what I can tell, Yugoslavia was begining a small economic turnaround when it all went to shit...hell, it was even exporting some stuff to the west, which makes it the only communist nation I can think of that did. But yes, there were certainly problems...and it is very difficult to make a collective work, primarily due to the fact that people suck. This needs to be incorportated into any notion of a collective before it becomes viable, ie a collective that works off of the notion that all individuals act in their best interest....its an odd beast....but I have seen models for it.
Common people....there were four posts up, only one of which was vaguely intelligent....sigh. If I wanted to hear this ramblings I would wathc CSPAN. Anyways, this is a great idea....the big question is who would administer it. While Red Hat (I don't know about O'Rielly) has proven to be quite benevolent up to this point....something seems alittle funny about having them administer a fund like this.....also, too many eggs are being concentrated in Red Hats lab...they already have RHDL, host Freshmeat and GNOME....again, I think their doing a fine job.....but lets diversify alittle. Opensource.org is a potential choice....or possibly a new organization created to handle just this....a project like this would be quite abit different than your average programing project....
Hows this for a project idea...hire one person to work full time documenting and consolidating Linux and other OSS data into one place....hell, do it through the linux documentation project....but more through documentation (and I know people are working on this, just someone full time would be nice) would make this movement much more accessable.
BTW: Collectivism in the USSR failed for a number of reasons...and while there are problems with collectivists projects, they are not inherently flawed. For a neat example of collectivism that...well, almost worked, check out the former Yugoslavia. Yes they collaped....it was more because of ethinic and nationalist tenions rather than economic one. Interesting stuff. But completely unrelated.
Point 1: OS's impact anything one does on a computer, the basics of their design may have been mastered awhile ago so that they are no longer "problems", but OS's are stll of vital importance.
Point 2: Stability is only on of Be's strenghs, it is also extremely fast, has an extremely clean interface, and supposadly has a great API. Multiuser is nice, but really not needed for most people. I, for instance, have almost no need for it. BTW, at some point I believe Be was intended to be multiuser, the home directory remains, but I think they ditched mutiuser plans....anyone know more about this?
Point 3: Who cares the CEO, its the product that counts. Yeah, I've heard bad things about Gassee too, there was a Wired article several years ago that was scathing...hey, maybe he learned from his mistakes.
Point 4: Well, yeah, fanatics suck....but most Be users are, in my experience, far more reasonable than most fanatics....all OS's, even the crappy ones, have fanatics......and their annoyingness transcends to OS.
True, I keep forgeting that Be is still in the devlopment stages.....still, we need more toys....Be could easily become one of my primary OS's if it just had more stuff on it. I love Linux for its versitility, and its politics, but frankly I don't really have enought time to get the full benefit out of my Linux systems. Its odd that Be crashed....I have tortured it and have not been able to even lock up a program...but my hardware, through sheer luck, is right off of the list....and I've only had R4 for several days, so who knows. I would be truely sad if Be went down....it would be nice to see them open source it if it died, but thats still a hollow win. I would rather them OS it and still keep activly developing it....but that might not be fesable. I'm just sick of seing superior technologies die due to the mass stupidity of the average buyer, and lets face it, if the average buyer is not using an OS, then it will be religated to a niche role, always playing second fiddle in terms of applications and the like (though linux seem to be changing this somewhat)....it really would be nice to be able to run everything I do one one os....curretnly I'm booting between three. Windoze for games, Linux for actually doing stuff and Be for shits and giggles. I've said it before and I'll say it again....if Be and Linux could somehow be merged....than the resulting combo would simply take over the world.
I actually think that Be is striking a good median between OSS and propiratory. Some of its code and much of its developement community is OSS, and the API is open (I don't code, probably the only/.er that doesent) so I tend to overlook these things), yet the company has enough closed that it can feel secure in its product. I wish everything could be OSS, but work needs to be done on the business model before it really becomes viable....and its being done, just not ready yet. In the meantime, Be seems like a benevolent company, making a great product, and I am happy to give them my money. If its got to be propriatory, then they are doing it in a respecatable manner. Lets hope they remain that way.
From a purely technical standpoint....Be is superior to almost anything out there for the desktop market....sure the Unixs are far more flexable and make far better servers, but when it comes to a pure desktop, Be is as stable as Linux, faster than anythings I've ever seen, and easier to use than even the Macos
None of this matters, if the superior product would have one in the market place, the world would be running OS/2 right now rather than windows.
Be would make a better destop os than any windows products, however I have a feeling that Be calls itself a niche as it is trying to avoid falling under the wanton eyes of Microsoft. But lets fact it, what desktop application would not benefit from the advantages of a mediaOS....basically means it runs stuff faster than hell (no, it is not a good server OS)
I just really with it was open source, not that I think that everything in this world has to be open source, but being open source would solve many of Be's problems, such as lack of HW support and a more active developor community creating and porting software to it. There already is a certain OSS feel to alot of Be software, alot of it is open, however it definetly lacks the vigor of something like Linux...
I'm not sure of the dates, but Be was around long before MS started investing in Apple...I think its atleast acouple years old. Its CEO and founder used to be an Apple bigwig...I dont know about the rest of the people there though.
Brian
Dell sucks - only WinModem available
on
Red Hat at Dell?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I have a dell and its perfectly compatable as is. Back when I ordered it (late 97) Winmodems were the standard, but could be upgraded to a regular USR Sportster for something like 20 bucks....which any sane person did.
Dell is kindof a cruddy company, buy the boxes they do make are pretty nice....the fact that mine had managed to survive me and still keep smiling is testament to that.
In retrospect, I should have gotten a Micron or just built my own....I was just feeling lazy.
Actually, there are a great many people, many quite experienced, that enjoy using games....just because you don't like them is a reason to completely dismiss it.
There are alot of schlock games out there....but every once and awhile there are some good things....example of some good, modern games include thief, baldours gate, Might and Magic 6, Total Annilation (sp?whatever).....some games have managed to increase in quality compared to what we used to have, but yeah, alot are complete crap.
Tolerance of governmental error, no, but understanding the problem, and the fact that the people behind those error are just that, people, and do occasionally screw up, is also needed. There definetly needs to be a change in the patent office, especially regarding technology and the notion that abstract ideas can be patented as opposed to concrete implmentation or process. The idea that a process can be patented is what largely is responsibly for this fubar...which makes sense when it comes to something as a new way of systhesising chemicals on a large scale or something concrete like that...but their just getting too abstract to fullfill the original purpose of the patent. The biotech field is actually even more screwed up....guy named craig ventor running around patenting human genes....yup, the guy own patents on several of your genes.....hell, he doesnt even know what they do, just that their there.....real screwed up. But yeah, some yelling and screaming could be needed...I just think that it should be noted that they are performing an extremely difficult task...perhaps patents should be classified a mission critical enviroment where any error is intollerable, much like surgery, but somehow I think a more though post-patent review process to weed out this schlock would be a better use of resouces....oh well
I certainly agree with people that the patent office has made a huge number of really stupid decisions lately....but keep in mind everything that they have to keep track of that gets patented, and how fast the tech industry in general moves. Certainly changes need to be made to allow them to work effectivly in this intense enviroment, but just keep in mind the enormity of the task they have to undertake. Its easier to criticize than understand, unfortunely, the only way to truely fix something is to understand it first. Cheers.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious, it seems as that paid advertisements have to be noted as such. Look at the political ads where they have to state at the end (this has been a paid advertisement), or infomercials....is there a law governing advertising masqurading as something else, as this would appear to be? Looks like I'm going goggle...too bad, always liked altavista.
I think we can all agree that this essay is a load of crap...but I think that we need to be carefull of having a knee-jerk response when stuff like this comes out. Whenever something criticising linux/*bsd FSF or whatever comes out, people jump all over it. As a community, it would be better to sit back, analyze what other have to say, and attempt to address potential weeknesses. Even essays such as this can have one or two things worthy of consideration, if only to determine what type of logic underlies the criticism. I thought that these people brough up two points vaguely worth of consideration.
A. Long term viability. Lets face it, the current boom is a fad masking over a long-lasting tradition. But this fad is bringing in valuable support. In the public eye, Linux will fail if it falls back to being a geek toy, sure, it can continue on indefinetly in that manner, but the public doesn't care about that. They only care if it affects them. Maintaining a broader user base, and Linux is heading for now, is important for Linux to become something other than a server OS (I think the classic FSF model works fine for server), but the variety of software needed for desktop software by nature demands wider support, and this support comes from users. Assuming one wants Linux to become a desktop platform in addition to a server platform, maintanence of this broaduer user and vendor base is necessary,and at this point, as this support depends largely on hype, a long-term solution is needed. (note: contrary to many, hype isn't all bad, I think it helps reach a large amount of geek-inclined, tinkers or idealists who other wise would never of heard of this. Their not the tradational linux users, but hey, the more the merrier.
B. There is a slight contridiction in stateing that software should be free, than stating that it is ok to make money through support, education and the like. When one thinks about this, it means that software is only free to those who don't need support, IE geeks (most of the time). There is a dicotomy that needs to be resolved between "free" code and the ability to make money...the current model just doesn't hack it, the free except for other things...either its free or it isn't. I personally would like to see a case where all vital tools are available oss, ie, OS, server tools, office suite, web browser, and the like, whereas more eclectic things may remain proprietory, such as games, weird niche apps, whatever. Propriatory software does have a place, we just need to remove the issue of its closedness from being a barrier to new entries who may not be able to afford the cost of propriatory software, such as kids, new companies and organizations, people in underdeveloped areas and the like. This would level the playing field, but still allow for commercial activity.
On a completely random note, I think that contrary to these people, OSS is a perfect example of a free market. The notion of a free market implies that there are many providers and customers are free to give their support (i.e. usually money) to the one that they feel is best. Theoretically, this leads to the best product winning, which we all know is not true. We do not and have not for some time lived in a free market economy, we live in a oligopoly, where a few large providers are able to control the market. This is not free market, the average consumer is not forced to decide between competing products, and the best product does not always, or even ever, win. OSS brings this back, replacing the resource exchange of money with the exhance of ideas, support and the like. Yeah, its messy, thats the way the free market was intended to be. Current defenders of the free-market are defending something that, on a large scale, died long ago and are acting as intellectual pimps for companies.
whew.....getting off of soapbox now.
Brian
BTW: I know of analytical firms/thinktanks that take oss very seriously, its just the better ones don't make alot of hype or follow hype. Their view of OSS's future seems to be positive, though not leading to world domination.
In any case, my brothers and sisters, it is time to rise up in arms. If this is a hoax, I'm not laughing. If it is not, I'm really not laughing. If this thing is real, them we really need to show the offending party something about the value of free speach.
viva la revolucion!!!!!!!!!
Not true, look at the breakup of AT&T in the 80's, the little subunits instantly tried to start to kill each other....would have been even more interesting if most of them actually competed with each other, as they do now...
Was anyone actually at the Gnome launch who can confirm what happened.
I personally think that it probably be called GNU Linux.......gnu components make up a huge part of the OS, which goes beyond just the kernal. I don't actually call it that though, as the linux name is what has developed, and it is hard to change once in place....also GNU Linux sounds funny. Put RMS's and GNU's massive contributions should be acknowledged in some way.
This is a problem that will probably occur repeatadly. I think two of the biggest factors contributing to open source software is ideology and need. This ideology can easily lead to arrogance, simply because of the strengh of these views that usually develops. This arrogance, however, is dangerous in a community that is depended on other as the linux community is. Face it, most linux user are dependent in a small way on most other linux users to develop new code, work out bugs....and stuff like that. It is what make the community neat, no one use is an island unto him or her self (horrible quote, but appropiate). When I picked up my first linux distro at the local software store, I was virtually attacked my helpful geeks. Many other nameless ones helped me learn how to actually use the darn thing. Like any community, new blood must keep coming in to keep things mixing, to add new ideas, new perspectives. The traditionally helpfull, open nature of the linux community is the strongest enabler to this process, and arrogance is a flaw that will turn off many. Pride in ones achievments, ideology and whatnot is one thing...but elavating that to the point where you position yourself above other is completely contrary to the whole point, and it will be a huge flaw if not controled. I think most people on /. and elseware are generally sane, respectfull and open, with just a few bad, loud, seeds making alot of noise. But we all need to make an effort to keep that openness available to all, else the entire point of the software is lost. As yet another horrible cliche, I leave you with a thought "open source, closed minds"....dont work does it. Everyone needs to chill just a bit. Dont abandon you guns; defend your views, just do it politiely, calmly and with at least polite respect for other, even inane, opinions. Elsewise we are just a huge, geeky mob.
B
I hate to agree, but I agree. Like many others here, I cut my teeth on slackware....a kindly little geek at a previous job took me under his wing and coached me though the rough spots. But I recently switched to Red Hat....I like the feel of Slackware better, and it seems to make more logical sense overall, but it was simply too hard to maintain. I don't have hours to futz around with the system....I barely have time to play with the civ beta. While manually loading and compialing everything is "purer" and more preferable in many ways, it is simply too clumsy. Pkgtool is great, but no files are relased using its format, so its next to useless. I had nightmares simply thinking about having to compile and install everything required for Gnome. Makes me sad though....Slackware has the right "feel" to it....I sorting out Red Hat, but....theres nothing like the real thing. Would it be possible for someone to grab slackware, update all the necessary librarys, add support for debs and rpm, and rerelease it, kindof like how Mandrake did with redhats distro....have a slackware release, and then a slackware for slackers...maybe. Dont know.
Brian
Somehow I really doubt that the record industry is going to get behind this. The hole industry is based around having to get 5 different cd's to get five songs you like. Simply put, most albums are loaded with schlock with acouple good songs mixed in. They would simply loose too many sales to this. It would be efficient, it would be nice, it would make sense.....hence it ain't going to happen. Granted, there are some albums out there that is mostly good stuff, but they are few and far between.......
There are some good points to the BSD license, I just really don't have that much faith in most companies to not ruthlessly exploit it. The GPL is not perfect either....mainly in that it goes to the other extreme in an attempt to protect the code base from fragmentation/propriatoryness/exploitation,and other bad stuff. The question is where to draw the line. The GPL is about as save as one can get in terms of preventing fragmenting the code base, but in this protection it very likely could discourage some from developing under it. On the other hand the BSD license, while providing more freedom, doesn't (IMHO) protect the ability for that freedom to continue. Its a balancing act. I really would like to see a standardized third path that would allow for commercial development but not endanger the code base. In an ideal world, everything would be GPL. But this ain't an ideal world, there is much good software that is being developed for commercial purposes (following a more traditional model of business, the Red Hat model would not work for many types of software), it would be nice if they could play nicely with the GPL stuff. At this point, I think the safest bet is either GPL,LGPL,BSD or pure propiatory (my spelling suck,forgive me) like VMware or WordPerfect. The products add much value to the platform an, while the add nothing lasting to the code base, they provide functionality in the immediate sense, which is also good. Its the weird middle ground that needs work.
Just arambling...need more coffee
Tell you the truth, I don't know, as I installed the whole darn mess. I believe you would at least need the gnome-core package...which I believe actually contains the code for panel, but I am unsure of how that depends on the other aspects of Gnome. Anyone else know...this would be usefull just because the Gnome install process is such a mess....entirely too many files to download, keep track of, and the like.
Yes, but there is nothing mandating that those changes had to be made public. Look at Apple, sure they released many of the modifications that they made to the BSD design, but they didn't have to. The BSD license, while enabling companies and organizations to protect their interest, also has a problem in that it could easily lead to fragmentation as the design gets modified and the changes are not released back. You start getting propriatory versions. This doesn't always happen, the FreeBSD people are proof of this, but it can, hence mine concern.
I found Gnome too unstable also, which made me sad because I prefered the feel of it to KDE. I like KDE, and support it, but its just a tad to slow for me....gnome on the other hand is fast and has, IMHO, a nicer interface, but its install is freaking insane and its not stable.
One thing that I found that is kindof nifty, on my system at least, is to run individual gnome components under windowmaker. I have my windowmaker autolaunch panel and gmc on launch, and for some reason this is far more stable than using gnome-session was. had no problems with it, but I have just been using it for acouple days. That way I can still keep the nifty gpager and set up some drawers for common apps, but keep most of the advantages of windowmaker. granted, this strips out alot off the niftyness of gnome..but hey.
This simply goes back to one of the fundemental problems the Linux/open source/free software movement faces...in involvement of comercial organizations or not. Most commercial entities will not go for the GPL, yet have valuable contributions to make. On the other hand, this license proliferation is just mucking the whole thing up, and licenses like the BSD license allow the code to be exploited too easily without return to the community. IMHO, we need to have just three licenses, the GPL, LGPL, and a third one which will make commercial entities more cofortable yet still enable it to work with GPL software and its devotes...something like a NQFPL (not quite free public license). make no pretense to be compelety free, but yet still works with the movement. In the NCL license defense, I think the two year expiration period is a decent idea...but, simply put, we have too freeking many licenses running around, their going to become meaningless soon. Perhaps dialogue on a third license of non-commercial origin, but with commercial entites in mind, could be developed. I would love to see FSF and OSI involved in this...an attempt to build consensus.
Yeah, I saw that....that wasnt what I was worried about. Basically some people were saying that the Linux version would ship with the regular retail version on march 16....which give us about, well, they would have already pressed it, the beta tests would be for a patch. Others have said that the linux version would be coming latter. I don't know....I would check their site, but.
Got the email this morning...damn it made my day.
But yeah, looks like they already sent it out.
In regards to an earlier post regarding the linux version being on the shipping cd going out the 16th.....is this true? Its going to be rather hard betatesting a product in a few days.
For once, I have actually seen some intelligent discussion regarding Katz...unfortunetly, it seems as if the case against Katz is limited to his occasional spelling and grammer error and the nature of his writtings. To the first, I say wahhhhh, quit your whining...online publishing, even from the most reputable sources, has errors, its the nature of the beast, its all about getting stuff up in a timely manner, errors slip through. I for one would rather have writting with some errors than have it edited into sterility like most mainstream writting.
/. and are otherwise members of the "community"....Katz draws heat because he is actually bold enough to try to contibute in his own manner, more power to him. Others, including myself, will hopefully begin following and making further contributions.
As for the content, people have recited the "news for nerds" mantra over and over again. I challange anyone to provide a solid definition of what that is. How come Star Wars fits but Katz mussings don't? Katz is not focusing on on the technical issues...thats fine....he is focusing on more abstract issues regarding the OSS phenomena than the purely technical, it might not always be relevent, but it is important....find me any one event, community or movement that did not have people who stepped back from the immediate goals of said group and looked at some bigger issues. This is vitally important to any movement it it wants to survive. Katz might not be technical, but he does seem to understand some of the deeper roots of what makes oss tick.
And about community, again, OSS/free software/Linux requires all types of people, not just coders or documentors. I personally, consider myself part of the community. I am technically oriented, done my time in tech support and all, but according to the average definition of what a OSS person is, I do not qualify. Why? I couldn't code my way out of a box, I don't have the time to document material, and, in short, I don't add anything original myself. Most human relations are of this sort, not of original creation but of partisipation in the project nonetheless. What do we do, submit bug reports, actually use the stuff being produced, show others the wonders of what computers can really do if one becomes literate in them and in general think about what the hell is going on. Its not coding, but it is still important to the survival of the movement. I'm sure there are tons of of other people like me who read
I remember my first attempts to install Linux, which failed miserably. As soon as I walked into the Linux area of the local software store looking at the distros, I was attacked by helpful geeks. That attempt failed, but latter other geeks took me under their wing and showed me the ropes to the point where I can now take care of myself. I'm no guru, but I am competent, and I'm repeating that process with others. Linux desperetly needs this in order to keep new people from coming in and from becoming evermore closed off, a static, closed society of geeks. How can we have open software and closed minds? My, that sounded cheezy, but the sentiment is there.
OK, I've spoken my peace, at least for now...I am actually vaguely toying with the idea of putting up a forum based site dedicated towards dealing with some of the "meta" issues of geekdom....the philosophy of geekdom, if you will. I'm sure many would not be interested in it, but it still might play a role in OSS. Does anyone out there have any interest in contributing to this?
Brian
Well, I sure you certainly have a better view of the situation there than my, purely academic one....there did seem to be some strenghs to Yugoslavias methods, they might not of worked, but I think they were at least interesting and worthy of study. The best, although still warped, implementation of Marx yet, the other counties just mangled Marx. And from what I can tell, Yugoslavia was begining a small economic turnaround when it all went to shit...hell, it was even exporting some stuff to the west, which makes it the only communist nation I can think of that did. But yes, there were certainly problems...and it is very difficult to make a collective work, primarily due to the fact that people suck. This needs to be incorportated into any notion of a collective before it becomes viable, ie a collective that works off of the notion that all individuals act in their best interest....its an odd beast....but I have seen models for it.
Common people....there were four posts up, only one of which was vaguely intelligent....sigh. If I wanted to hear this ramblings I would wathc CSPAN. Anyways, this is a great idea....the big question is who would administer it. While Red Hat (I don't know about O'Rielly) has proven to be quite benevolent up to this point....something seems alittle funny about having them administer a fund like this.....also, too many eggs are being concentrated in Red Hats lab...they already have RHDL, host Freshmeat and GNOME....again, I think their doing a fine job.....but lets diversify alittle. Opensource.org is a potential choice....or possibly a new organization created to handle just this....a project like this would be quite abit different than your average programing project....
Hows this for a project idea...hire one person to work full time documenting and consolidating Linux and other OSS data into one place....hell, do it through the linux documentation project....but more through documentation (and I know people are working on this, just someone full time would be nice) would make this movement much more accessable.
BTW: Collectivism in the USSR failed for a number of reasons...and while there are problems with collectivists projects, they are not inherently flawed. For a neat example of collectivism that...well, almost worked, check out the former Yugoslavia. Yes they collaped....it was more because of ethinic and nationalist tenions rather than economic one. Interesting stuff. But completely unrelated.
Point 1: OS's impact anything one does on a computer, the basics of their design may have been mastered awhile ago so that they are no longer "problems", but OS's are stll of vital importance.
Point 2: Stability is only on of Be's strenghs, it is also extremely fast, has an extremely clean interface, and supposadly has a great API. Multiuser is nice, but really not needed for most people. I, for instance, have almost no need for it. BTW, at some point I believe Be was intended to be multiuser, the home directory remains, but I think they ditched mutiuser plans....anyone know more about this?
Point 3: Who cares the CEO, its the product that counts. Yeah, I've heard bad things about Gassee too, there was a Wired article several years ago that was scathing...hey, maybe he learned from his mistakes.
Point 4: Well, yeah, fanatics suck....but most Be users are, in my experience, far more reasonable than most fanatics....all OS's, even the crappy ones, have fanatics......and their annoyingness transcends to OS.
True, I keep forgeting that Be is still in the devlopment stages.....still, we need more toys....Be could easily become one of my primary OS's if it just had more stuff on it. I love Linux for its versitility, and its politics, but frankly I don't really have enought time to get the full benefit out of my Linux systems. Its odd that Be crashed....I have tortured it and have not been able to even lock up a program...but my hardware, through sheer luck, is right off of the list....and I've only had R4 for several days, so who knows.
/.er that doesent) so I tend to overlook these things), yet the company has enough closed that it can feel secure in its product. I wish everything could be OSS, but work needs to be done on the business model before it really becomes viable....and its being done, just not ready yet. In the meantime, Be seems like a benevolent company, making a great product, and I am happy to give them my money. If its got to be propriatory, then they are doing it in a respecatable manner. Lets hope they remain that way.
I would be truely sad if Be went down....it would be nice to see them open source it if it died, but thats still a hollow win. I would rather them OS it and still keep activly developing it....but that might not be fesable. I'm just sick of seing superior technologies die due to the mass stupidity of the average buyer, and lets face it, if the average buyer is not using an OS, then it will be religated to a niche role, always playing second fiddle in terms of applications and the like (though linux seem to be changing this somewhat)....it really would be nice to be able to run everything I do one one os....curretnly I'm booting between three. Windoze for games, Linux for actually doing stuff and Be for shits and giggles. I've said it before and I'll say it again....if Be and Linux could somehow be merged....than the resulting combo would simply take over the world.
I actually think that Be is striking a good median between OSS and propiratory. Some of its code and much of its developement community is OSS, and the API is open (I don't code, probably the only
From a purely technical standpoint....Be is superior to almost anything out there for the desktop market....sure the Unixs are far more flexable and make far better servers, but when it comes to a pure desktop, Be is as stable as Linux, faster than anythings I've ever seen, and easier to use than even the Macos
None of this matters, if the superior product would have one in the market place, the world would be running OS/2 right now rather than windows.
Be would make a better destop os than any windows products, however I have a feeling that Be calls itself a niche as it is trying to avoid falling under the wanton eyes of Microsoft. But lets fact it, what desktop application would not benefit from the advantages of a mediaOS....basically means it runs stuff faster than hell (no, it is not a good server OS)
I just really with it was open source, not that I think that everything in this world has to be open source, but being open source would solve many of Be's problems, such as lack of HW support and a more active developor community creating and porting software to it. There already is a certain OSS feel to alot of Be software, alot of it is open, however it definetly lacks the vigor of something like Linux...
I'm not sure of the dates, but Be was around long before MS started investing in Apple...I think its atleast acouple years old. Its CEO and founder used to be an Apple bigwig...I dont know about the rest of the people there though.
Brian
Actually, I have a dell and its perfectly compatable as is. Back when I ordered it (late 97) Winmodems were the standard, but could be upgraded to a regular USR Sportster for something like 20 bucks....which any sane person did.
Dell is kindof a cruddy company, buy the boxes they do make are pretty nice....the fact that mine had managed to survive me and still keep smiling is testament to that.
In retrospect, I should have gotten a Micron or just built my own....I was just feeling lazy.
Actually, there are a great many people, many quite experienced, that enjoy using games....just because you don't like them is a reason to completely dismiss it.
There are alot of schlock games out there....but every once and awhile there are some good things....example of some good, modern games include thief, baldours gate, Might and Magic 6, Total Annilation (sp?whatever).....some games have managed to increase in quality compared to what we used to have, but yeah, alot are complete crap.
Tolerance of governmental error, no, but understanding the problem, and the fact that the people behind those error are just that, people, and do occasionally screw up, is also needed. There definetly needs to be a change in the patent office, especially regarding technology and the notion that abstract ideas can be patented as opposed to concrete implmentation or process. The idea that a process can be patented is what largely is responsibly for this fubar...which makes sense when it comes to something as a new way of systhesising chemicals on a large scale or something concrete like that...but their just getting too abstract to fullfill the original purpose of the patent. The biotech field is actually even more screwed up....guy named craig ventor running around patenting human genes....yup, the guy own patents on several of your genes.....hell, he doesnt even know what they do, just that their there.....real screwed up. But yeah, some yelling and screaming could be needed...I just think that it should be noted that they are performing an extremely difficult task...perhaps patents should be classified a mission critical enviroment where any error is intollerable, much like surgery, but somehow I think a more though post-patent review process to weed out this schlock would be a better use of resouces....oh well
I certainly agree with people that the patent office has made a huge number of really stupid decisions lately....but keep in mind everything that they have to keep track of that gets patented, and how fast the tech industry in general moves. Certainly changes need to be made to allow them to work effectivly in this intense enviroment, but just keep in mind the enormity of the task they have to undertake. Its easier to criticize than understand, unfortunely, the only way to truely fix something is to understand it first. Cheers.
Brian