Great business idea! Invent a new programming language and patent it. Then when people start releasing software written in it you can sue all of them for infringement.
Just when I thought C# was becoming popular on Slashdot, you go and ruin it for me.:-(
Tyranies are supposed to the be enemy of communism. But definitions on paper do not make something actually true.
Any society that insists a) on permitting only ONE organizing principle, and b) on turning a blind eye toward its own worse tendencies, is "cruisin for a bruisin".
Except there is this inconvenient little detail that it is been largely the freemarket ideologues who insist on maintaiing a naive/permissive attitude toward monopolistic tendencies in the private sector. Government intervention (hence public accountability) is always portrayed as an abomination, often with maudlin undertones from an Ayn Rand novel.
Unless, of course, that intervention is by the military into the lives of millions of foreigners to secure resources for the economy at home. Then its time to wave the flag (literally) after every commercial break.
The qualities [that a president] is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage.... His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. -- Douglas Adams
The article is about Desktop Linux, specifically a Ubuntu derrivative, and doesn't concern the strict definition of Linux as a kernel.
There are two ubiquitous use-cases on desktop PCs: Install applications and Install drivers. Steps that include compiling and fretting over compiler versions don't match up with customer expectations for servicability, except where the PCs are used like thin-clients in an institutional setting.
How your message has anything to do with addressing the above concerns of desktop users is beyond me. Perhaps you are declaring a lack of interest in 'Linux' providing an alternative to the exceedingly dangerous Microsoft monopoly. Good for you; that's an interesting opinion you have (which, by the way, is no basis for telling people to 'go somewhere else').
If you want the same with a Unix flair, able to execute "Linux Binaries", go to SUN and use Solaris 10.
Would you even know what a Mac was if it landed in your lap? Was your suggestion offered in the spirit of being helpful? Or was this taken as an opportunity to look down your nose at a Desktop Linux advocate? The above quote makes me wonder.
My suggestion to you is to read up on LSB, LSB Desktop, Project UDI and OSDL's Project Portland so you at least have a clue when discussing the concept of an "operating system" in this context.
Not one of them seems to mention LSB or their upcoming introduction of the LSB Desktop standard.
Do not count on a corporate defacto standard either. Redhat played such a role for a couple of years and failed: Much of the initial participation from ISVs eventually evaporated.
C++ support: it does work. No, a single binary MAY NOT WORK. *Unless* you also distribute the needed libraries. Nothing AT ALL is preventing you from doing that. These libraries can and should even be installed privately for your binary-only application. Someone updates the system library? Doesn't affect you.
No easy install/uninstall: Sounds like you are carping about the Linux systems themselves. As far as your BINARY APPLICATION goes -- keep it in a single directory (tree). Uninstall? Remove the tree. You want to get fancy? Combine that with bundling into a RPM.
Excuse me, but ISVs are supposed to meld their application with their own copy of an OS right down to where it meets the kernel???
That's not how you solve binary compatabilty. Draw a line in the sand, call one side "Operating System" and publish specs for it. Everything else is applications and OEM drivers, many of which should be able to get installed by satisfying ONE dependency: The OS version.
As for drivers... Why should each vendor manage their own ABSTRACTION LAYER for Linux? That's the OS's job!!!
I agree with your view of DRM, but the rest seems like a cop-out to me.
GUIs and Wizards are prerequisites, certainly. But FOSS systems now have plenty of those.
What they lack is a common standard for API and installation. Give developers a way to code, test and package for one environment; Then users will have a way to download/buy software packages that are self-contained and independantly distributed.
And what about installing drivers?
If users can't do these things then all the wizards in the world won't change our very fancy thin-client model into a workable desktop.
Some of them went through a phase where they ported apps for Redhat 6.x - 7.x and declared their product as "Redhat Compatible". Ostensibly anyone shopping for 3rd-party software for Linux was supposed to look for "Redhat Compatible".
The problem was that Redhat broke binary compatability way too often, and this turned developers off to "Linux". Other distros also proved popular over time, and they had differing package formats and criteria that needed to be observed; targeting "linux" became increasingly difficult. So the corporate defacto-standard failed.
The LSB Desktop standard should be finalized later this year. If we start to see RPMs targeted at "LSB Desktop 1.0" then I would consider it a success.
At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
Sorry but Belize, Paraguay, Jamaica, and Luxembourg are tiny and put together do not even approach the population or impact of the United States. The first three are also 'developing' nations.
That leaves Australia as the only 'significant' emitter per capita. But even they have a mere 20 mil. people whereas the United states is nearly 300 mil.
The two developed countries, Austrailia and Luxembourg, have both signed the Kyoto Treaty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
The weather scientists need clearance from Washington and a PR hack listening on the phone when they talk to the media??!
Relatively speaking Windows remains far more compatible for complex 3rd-party applications over, say, the past 5 years. It has a stable ABI, even if parts of it are hidden or documented in a surruptitious manner.
And yes, Windows does have a standard installer. It isn't used 100% of the time but it still sets an example. Mac OSX as well, only without the rotten registry effects.
On 'Linux' we have RPM as a standard file format, but no standard way to target the OS. You are expected to specify needed OS components (and all other extras) piecemeal. But on a real platform, the first thing an app checks is the OS and its version, which gets a whole raft of possible "dependency hell" situations out of the way.
You have an excellent point about the demands of tech support.
I have actually done Linux product support for a living: Shrink-wrap Linux applications, along with Windows versions. And the vendor actually did target Redhat specifically... 6.x, 7.0, and 7.2 were supported. Redhat 7.1 was never supported because of an incompatability introduced with libpthreads that was rectified in 7.2. The introducion of Redhat 8 made the largest app nearly impossible to install, and 9.x just blew the whole thing out of the water.
I have several major programs which worked on Redhat 7 but a couple years later couldn't work with current Linux distros: WP Office 2000, Rational Rose 7, VMWare 3.2. Tux Racer is the only independant program I have older than 2 years that still runs.
Why have this lethal environment? Distro architects say that a constant flow of architechtural changes is easier on them than major revisions after 3-5 years. But I am inclined to think this amounts to cutting corners where flesh exists.
I wish you people would stop trying to be "helpful". Christ, do you think I wouldn't be using RTF if I could? I can't, so stop telling me to use fucking RTF.
I don't KNOW you, so stop copping such a rotten attitude.
I've had colleagues in IT and development (who otherwise had no idea) take up my suggestions for using RTF in many different situations. If you need a single file, open, Word-editable format that can hold basic formattng and tables with a spinkling of graphics, then you don't have many options beside RTF.
Slashdot Mirror
Great business idea! Invent a new programming language and patent it. Then when people start releasing software written in it you can sue all of them for infringement.
:-(
Just when I thought C# was becoming popular on Slashdot, you go and ruin it for me.
Tyranies are supposed to the be enemy of communism. But definitions on paper do not make something actually true.
Any society that insists a) on permitting only ONE organizing principle, and b) on turning a blind eye toward its own worse tendencies, is "cruisin for a bruisin".
Except there is this inconvenient little detail that it is been largely the freemarket ideologues who insist on maintaiing a naive/permissive attitude toward monopolistic tendencies in the private sector. Government intervention (hence public accountability) is always portrayed as an abomination, often with maudlin undertones from an Ayn Rand novel.
Unless, of course, that intervention is by the military into the lives of millions of foreigners to secure resources for the economy at home. Then its time to wave the flag (literally) after every commercial break.
And what about images I've scanned in, or downloaded from a friend?
Um, isn't the white balance in the wrong place??
Well its good that you found a tool to do white balance, because GIMP sure ain't gonna do it properly.
FCW also reports that the scope of the fake attacks will be global, and they are coordinating with partners in Australia, Canada and the UK."
I didn't know that computers only speak English.
Hmmm... learn sumthin new evry day.
The qualities [that a president] is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. ... His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. -- Douglas Adams
The correct term is 'INCIPIENT fascism'.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/01/13/73792_03 OPcringley_1.htmll .3.299903.10
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joe
Personally, I wouldn't.
There are two ubiquitous use-cases on desktop PCs: Install applications and Install drivers. Steps that include compiling and fretting over compiler versions don't match up with customer expectations for servicability, except where the PCs are used like thin-clients in an institutional setting.
How your message has anything to do with addressing the above concerns of desktop users is beyond me. Perhaps you are declaring a lack of interest in 'Linux' providing an alternative to the exceedingly dangerous Microsoft monopoly. Good for you; that's an interesting opinion you have (which, by the way, is no basis for telling people to 'go somewhere else').
Would you even know what a Mac was if it landed in your lap? Was your suggestion offered in the spirit of being helpful? Or was this taken as an opportunity to look down your nose at a Desktop Linux advocate? The above quote makes me wonder.
My suggestion to you is to read up on LSB, LSB Desktop, Project UDI and OSDL's Project Portland so you at least have a clue when discussing the concept of an "operating system" in this context.
Look at the other replies to your post...
Not one of them seems to mention LSB or their upcoming introduction of the LSB Desktop standard.
Do not count on a corporate defacto standard either. Redhat played such a role for a couple of years and failed: Much of the initial participation from ISVs eventually evaporated.
C++ support: it does work. No, a single binary MAY NOT WORK. *Unless* you also distribute the needed libraries. Nothing AT ALL is preventing you from doing that. These libraries can and should even be installed privately for your binary-only application. Someone updates the system library? Doesn't affect you.
No easy install/uninstall: Sounds like you are carping about the Linux systems themselves. As far as your BINARY APPLICATION goes -- keep it in a single directory (tree). Uninstall? Remove the tree. You want to get fancy? Combine that with bundling into a RPM.
Excuse me, but ISVs are supposed to meld their application with their own copy of an OS right down to where it meets the kernel???
That's not how you solve binary compatabilty. Draw a line in the sand, call one side "Operating System" and publish specs for it. Everything else is applications and OEM drivers, many of which should be able to get installed by satisfying ONE dependency: The OS version.
As for drivers... Why should each vendor manage their own ABSTRACTION LAYER for Linux? That's the OS's job!!!
I agree with your view of DRM, but the rest seems like a cop-out to me.
GUIs and Wizards are prerequisites, certainly. But FOSS systems now have plenty of those.
What they lack is a common standard for API and installation. Give developers a way to code, test and package for one environment; Then users will have a way to download/buy software packages that are self-contained and independantly distributed.
And what about installing drivers?
If users can't do these things then all the wizards in the world won't change our very fancy thin-client model into a workable desktop.
ISVs generally don't like Linux.
Some of them went through a phase where they ported apps for Redhat 6.x - 7.x and declared their product as "Redhat Compatible". Ostensibly anyone shopping for 3rd-party software for Linux was supposed to look for "Redhat Compatible".
The problem was that Redhat broke binary compatability way too often, and this turned developers off to "Linux". Other distros also proved popular over time, and they had differing package formats and criteria that needed to be observed; targeting "linux" became increasingly difficult. So the corporate defacto-standard failed.
The LSB Desktop standard should be finalized later this year. If we start to see RPMs targeted at "LSB Desktop 1.0" then I would consider it a success.
My bad... Australia hasn't signed it.
That's what I get for checking on a news site instead of Wikipedia.
Thats cute. Now see what's he's really doing:
At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/2
Sorry but Belize, Paraguay, Jamaica, and Luxembourg are tiny and put together do not even approach the population or impact of the United States. The first three are also 'developing' nations.
That leaves Australia as the only 'significant' emitter per capita. But even they have a mere 20 mil. people whereas the United states is nearly 300 mil.
The two developed countries, Austrailia and Luxembourg, have both signed the Kyoto Treaty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Incidentally, I could not get this to play with gmplayer (the HUI front-end) but the shell mplayer invocation worked fine.
One mplayer GUI that will work with mms protocol is KMplayer.
XINE tells me I need am mms plugin, but I can't find a binary deb for it.
At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
The weather scientists need clearance from Washington and a PR hack listening on the phone when they talk to the media??!
That at least rates as 'repressive'.
In absolute terms none of it holds true.
Relatively speaking Windows remains far more compatible for complex 3rd-party applications over, say, the past 5 years. It has a stable ABI, even if parts of it are hidden or documented in a surruptitious manner.
And yes, Windows does have a standard installer. It isn't used 100% of the time but it still sets an example. Mac OSX as well, only without the rotten registry effects.
On 'Linux' we have RPM as a standard file format, but no standard way to target the OS. You are expected to specify needed OS components (and all other extras) piecemeal. But on a real platform, the first thing an app checks is the OS and its version, which gets a whole raft of possible "dependency hell" situations out of the way.
Thanks.
You have an excellent point about the demands of tech support.
I have actually done Linux product support for a living: Shrink-wrap Linux applications, along with Windows versions. And the vendor actually did target Redhat specifically... 6.x, 7.0, and 7.2 were supported. Redhat 7.1 was never supported because of an incompatability introduced with libpthreads that was rectified in 7.2. The introducion of Redhat 8 made the largest app nearly impossible to install, and 9.x just blew the whole thing out of the water.
I have several major programs which worked on Redhat 7 but a couple years later couldn't work with current Linux distros: WP Office 2000, Rational Rose 7, VMWare 3.2. Tux Racer is the only independant program I have older than 2 years that still runs.
Why have this lethal environment? Distro architects say that a constant flow of architechtural changes is easier on them than major revisions after 3-5 years. But I am inclined to think this amounts to cutting corners where flesh exists.
...by scaring people into upgrading to newer DRM'd systems?
It makes me wonder.
If McAfee can cry wolf to get Mac users to subscribe, then I wouldn't be surprised if Hoglund accepted pay to write something like this.
A new EFI system is what you're supposed to buy in response to BIOS-scare stories.
That's what about EFI.
I wish you people would stop trying to be "helpful". Christ, do you think I wouldn't be using RTF if I could? I can't, so stop telling me to use fucking RTF.
I don't KNOW you, so stop copping such a rotten attitude.
I've had colleagues in IT and development (who otherwise had no idea) take up my suggestions for using RTF in many different situations. If you need a single file, open, Word-editable format that can hold basic formattng and tables with a spinkling of graphics, then you don't have many options beside RTF.
The new 'Base tool in OpenOffice has all of that: table, query and views designer; forms and reports; etc.
And it was written with real databases in mind (unlike Access).