Listen folks, Linux will not win its battle with Microsoft unless the community fights back. After all, this ad is the very sort of thing that Microsoft proposed in the Halloween Documents. And the corporate world actually listens to things like this.
I say the commercial champions of the Open Source/Linux community (i.e., Red Hat, VA Linux, Penguin Computing, etc.) should fight back by putting out ads that rebuke the point, by saying something like "The problem with Closed Source solutions like Windows 2000 is that they are tightly, centrally controlled, and the features you request or need cannot be added, unless Chairman Bill Says So.":-)
Well folks, this clearly does make matters more difficult, both for the GCC Steering Committee, which now has to deal with the repurcussions of Red Hat's decision, and for people who use "2.96", which will not be binary-compatible with 2.95.2 or upcoming 3.0.
However, I don't think choosing which GCC version to use was this simple a matter for Red Hat. After all, they needed to maintain compatibility with the Linux kernel on the one hand, and have better I18N support on the other. The reason Red Hat included "2.96" was because they desperately wanted better I18N support... I'll bet it was probably because they are trying to compete on the international front, most particularly with GUESS WHO (hint: SuSE and TurboLinux). Heck, I'll admit I'd have a hard time deciding on this too, especially when it could mean $$$ for a company which has yet to make a profit. Then there was "KGCC", because after all, who wants a distro that has a non-working kernel?!?
I do think Red Hat has been a bit too eager to include bleeding-edge packages in its distros, but in some cases, including this one, it is NOT just done without careful consideration. I think they should be cut just a little slack on this one.
I think some people may be worried about this because of the viscious circle that unpopular platforms get into. I don't even think there is a name for it, but I'm sure everyone has thought of it at one time or another.
The thing is, people don't generally buy into an OS or a platform merely for its own sake. If they buy an OS, chances are that they bought it because a) they need to do something with it, and b) they need to do something with it.:-) Now, if the platform has no applications, it ain't much use now, is it?!? But what makes applications writers write applications for THAT platform? Money, of course. I admit this is more true in the proprietary (read: M$) world than in the open source world, but even so, I seem to recall that even Bob Young of Red Hat admitted once that unpopular platforms do suffer from the viscious circle: The platform is not very popular, because it doesn't have any apps!! This does make it kind of a useless platform, right!?!? But now why does it have no apps? Well, because the platform isn't popular... And hence no reason to develop apps for it.
The question now becomes: HOW do you break this viscious circle? This is exactly the viscious circle companies like Microsoft hope will continue forever, which has helped them keep their monopoly position for so long!
Maybe some people are worried about SPARC Linux never being able to take off, since it was never popular do begin with?!? But surely if Red Hat discontinues it, they aren't helping to solve the problem, but rather making it worse, since now it will become even MORE unpopular!
Just food for thought! Then again, I could be wrong.
Couple of points here: 1) Somebody *HAS* written a Word converter for Linux--it's called WV, and it has also been incorporated into AbiWord for the AbiWord Word importer. It works pretty well, but as mentioned, that last 15% is the hardest part, and that part is constantly being worked on. 2) As for COM on Linux, what about Mozilla's XPCOM?
I see a potential for regression in the cause of open source software here though. I notice they say that they will make it easy for 3rd parties to write their own video drivers... But what if they decide to make them binary-only, and NOT covered by an open source license?? I don't like this idea at all, especially since it seems there are so many video card manufacturers (like ATI) who have shown that they are so unwilling to write open source code unless forced to.
For some reason, Slashdot did not nest my comment beneath this one before--so I'm trying again...
It is interesting that you mention this, because it just so happens that a similar thing happened to CP/M back in its heyday--developers actually started porting their CP/M applications to MS-DOS / PC-DOS because it was actually easier to port to DOS than it was to CP/M-86... So they started porting to DOS in spite of the installed CP/M user base... And look what happened!! This almost suggests that if we continue on this path, Linux will become the MS-DOS of the 90's... Isn't it wonderful how history repeats itself sometimes!?!?
Interesting that you mention this, because it just so happens that a similar thing happened to CP/M back in its heyday--developers actually started porting their CP/M applications to MS-DOS / PC-DOS because it was actually easier to port to DOS than it was to CP/M-86... So they started porting to DOS in spite of the installed CP/M user base... And look what happened!! This almost suggests that Linux will be the MS-DOS of the 90's... Isn't it wonderful how history repeats itself sometimes!?!?
The part about this law that sounds most frightening is the reverse-engineering clause. You realize that if this passes, efforts like WINE or Lesstif would basically become illegal? I'd hate to see this happen... WINE could really advance Linux in the marketplace if it actually became stable enough to run some "real world" Windows applications. So don't dismiss this so easily.
First of all, as a former OS/2 user, I can tell you that OS/2 was (and still is) a remarkably stable and well-engineered product when compared to Microsoft's Windows family. Yes, it has a few weaknesses (and some SERIOUS ones, IMHO), like the Single Input Queue, and the ugly little kludge they ended up implementing in the end to fix it... I agree with anyone who says that Windows 9x/NT's multiple asynchronous message queue is better. But I still found OS/2 to be much more stable and efficient than Windows. I later switched to Windows NT when I saw the writing on the wall that OS/2 was dead (mostly due to a lack of native OS/2 applications). I was figuring that since NT was originally based on the work done on OS/2 at the time, it would be most like OS/2 with regards to stability, etc. But unlike OS/2, I was disappointed to see that NT still crashed more often on me than OS/2 did... And NT took about 3 times longer to boot up than OS/2.
Granted, as a 100% pure Linux user now (I don't even do the dual-boot thing), I think even OS/2 is bloated, inefficient, and buggy compared to other alternatives, but leaving all other technical comparisons aside, let me say that this MS antitrust trial is **NOT** mainly about technical superiorities of one OS battling another one for market dominance. The point I am trying to make here is that yes, there are LOTS of alternatives to Windows, like MacOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, etc. Every one of them is arguably superior on the technical front to Windows today. But face it, had Microsoft been competing solely on the basis of the technical merits of their software in the marketplace, they would have been killed LONG ago. I can think of NOTHING more bloated, buggy, unstable, and inefficient that MS products.
It is the ANTI-COMPETITIVE tactics of MS that have resulted in their market share, and the scariest part is that there is evidence that they will now do ANYTHING to maintain their monopoly... Just consider how they DELIBERATELY tried to undermine and fracture the Java platform for example, all because they did not like the idea of "write once, run anywhere..." They saw it as a threat because it might open the door to make other OS's viable if they have software that would run anywhere. THAT is the key to their stranglehold on the OS market: Windows has about 70% or more of the software market running for it, and if it lost that advantage, they would almost surely die, as everyone (okay, even if only half of everyone) flocked to other OS's to get away from the bloated vaporware of MS.
The Internet itself also constitutes a potentially major long-term platform threat to Windows, for much the same reason--it is currently possible for ANYONE, with ANY operating system to surf the web. That is why they spent MILLIONS on developing Internet Explorer, and distributed it for free, and tied it to Windows, and then proclaimed that it would damage Windows if it were removed (which as 98Lite demonstrates, is nothing more than a complete, straight-out LIE). Their ultimate goal is slowly to commoditize the infrastructure, and make the Internet proprietary, so you MUST use Windows to use it. Look at the Halloween Documents if you need proof. Remember this, people.
And also remember, Bill Gates is a sick, demented, power-hungry person, IMHO. I am not saying he is dumb; I think he is one of the SMARTEST people in the world. I seriously admire his knowledge and knack for making intelligent business decisions, too. But face it, when he says things like "I must admit, I find it hard to concentrate lots of resources on trials and things, when the Internet is eroding our power everyday" (quoted from ZDNet, thank you), I think this is a sign of a man who cares only about hanging on to POWER. That is NOT healthy, IMHO.
Please remember this folks. I do not want to be held captive by a company that is willing to LIE to the public, and CHEAT just to maintain a monopoly as Microsoft is doing. That is why I think there is even more serious evil to be seen if this trial does not do something to neutralize the threat. That is why I am an avid Anti-Microsoft advocate, and that is why I think it is necessary to speak up loudly like this for ACTION.
And remember, GO MOZILLA!! It is our single most promising hope of re-gaining the momentum of W3C STANDARDS-compliance.
The UI is certainly slow. But look at the rendering of pages--that is FAST. The reason for the UI slowness is because of some well-known bugs which the Mozilla team has been wrestling with for over 3 milestones now.
Basically, the problem is that incremental reflow causes the entire window to get repainted, often times more than once. You can probably imagine that this would slow it down. They are working on this, but it isn't easy... It is particularly a problem under Linux, with GTK (Windows doesn't notice it as much, from what I've heard). They need more GTK experts to help them.
So please, HELP MOZILLA!! And feel free to give it another try. Don't be scared. It's only a lizard.:-)
From what I've read in the public.netscape.mozilla.gtk newsgroup, it looks like GtkMozilla is also soon going to be put into the main tree, possibly under/mozilla/webshell/embed/gtk. The ActiveX wrapper is in/mozilla/webshell/embed/ActiveX.
Offhand, I'd say that this GTK widget *will* allow embedding like the ActiveX control. After all, even if GTK itself changed in the future, what then? I should think all it would mean was some "tweaking" of the GtkMozilla code to work with the newer GTK. Likewise if the Mozilla code changed. Same goes for the ActiveX control, if Micro$oft one day decided (heaven forbid) to change the ActiveX standards slightly. In fact, I wonder if this isn't already coming--I understand they are working on COM+ as we speak.
Incidently, I also know that the GNOME Project has been trying for some time to find a way of embedding browser-like functionality into things like the file manager and the help system... And so far, all they have really are things like the Express browser, which is not very far beyond the planning stage.
My hope is that GtkMozilla will finally bridge this gap... I wonder, does anybody know if the NPL/MPL would allow this? I am assuming it would, if they are already going to allow people to embed the ActiveX control in their programs. But does anyone here more knowledgeable about licenses than me want to confirm this?
Well, I say this is a GREAT development, though perhaps a little overhyped at the moment. The reason I say this is that though it is indeed looking better and better with every passing moment, it is still has a ways to go before it catches up to the levels of maturity that products like Microsoft Word or Corel WordPerfect are at. AbiWord still lacks many features that any sensible critic would rightly point out are essential in a modern word processor. And ultimately, the fact of the matter is, people will not make the switch to an open source product like this unless it offers them at LEAST the minimal set of features that they NEED to get real work done. I don't think AbiWord has reached that level yet.
But this is still good--it is always good to see competition. Given a little more time, I think this product may well be in a position to compete head-to-head with Corel soon, not only for technical merits, but for its licensing terms. WordPerfect, though it may be free, it is still essentially proprietary. And if given the choice between two products that are almost identical on technical merits, I believe people will then start making the choice based on which one has more liberal licensing terms. Therefore, this might ultimately also put pressure on Corel to open-source their code as well, maybe under terms similar to those of licenses like the NPL and MPL. In my opinion, these are VERY good open source licenses to look at (and possibly model after), which even take business considerations into account. (But that's a slightly different topic.)
Anyway, my main point is that I think it is healthy to see competition like this that might lead to more open sourcing of proprietary products. If this trend continues, maybe someday we will in fact see nothing but open source software as a result. Now wouldn't THAT be wonderful!
Well folks, I would say this is not completely unwelcome--4.6 does seem a little more stable than 4.51 was, although even so, I still can't get it to run more than a few minutes without crashing. And worst of all, unlike the current Mozilla SeaMonkey project, 4.6 is still proprietary, so don't even think about trying to go into the code and trying to fix the bugs yourself... If you don't like the bugs, tough--you'll have to live with them. Personally, I think Netscape has got to be the most unstable, bloated piece of software I've seen for Linux yet. I think the Linux platform is desperately in need of a better browser. I say, while 4.6 is a nice interim measure, at the same time, I hope Netscape isn't spending too much in the way of resources on the 4.x line still, for as Jamie Zawinski said, Netscape sunk a huge amount of engineering effort into the 4.5 release in 1998, and that was a huge blow to Mozilla.
And on this front, I would say that Mozilla SeaMonkey is currently our best (and maybe our only) hope of getting a better browser for Linux... And what could be better? It is even open source! I therefore would like to call to all of you to help with the Mozilla project. Let us prove to Jamie Zawinski that all Mozilla needed was a little time.
I am one of the people who is contributing. Admittedly, I am not much of a coder--I only just completed some introductory C/C++ courses. But you do not even have to know C/C++ to do things like file bug reports, or even just give tips. For example, check this out. These open source tools were suggested to them by me.
Or, check out bug reports, like this. I submitted the patch that fixed that bug.
My point is, you don't have to know much about programming to help. And I think Mozilla deserves all the help it can get right now. So please, let us help Mozilla.
In case you people want to know what Mozilla is like... Let me say:
1) It is a radical departure from the old Netscape, and about time, too. 2) It is STANDARDS based. Example: ALL CSS1 properties are now supported. 3) It is truly cross-platform, unlike IE. Cross-platform UIs are built using a form of XML, in.XUL files. These are really cool. 4) It will support Skins (or Chrome), much like WinAmp. Skins anyone?? 5) Also please check out MozillaZine. They have some chrome available there.
I cannot get Mozilla M5 to compile on my Red Hat 6.0 system. Apart from the thousands of compiler warnings I get, it eventually gives up. Any ideas why?
Sorry folks, but in all fairness, I must point out that Linux has yet to garner such a rating. Yes, I agree NT's C2 rating is bogus. However, Linux currently does NOT have what's needed to earn a C2 rating either. ACLs are one of the things needed for a C2 rating, and Linux does not have this. However, NT DOES. So don't dismiss NT so easily. It has some great security potential.
Incidently, Trusted Solaris could probably get better than a C2 rating, and Secure HP-UX I believe, has earned a B3 rating.
But I think the Linux community should work on certifying Linux as at LEAST a C2 if it seriously hopes to compete with Microsoft's PR game... I mean, let's face it, MS may be making bogus claims, but the pity of it is, there are a lot of managers out there in the corporate world that actually buy MS's claims. I think the only way to fight fire is with fire.
I think Red Hat deserves praise--I mean, c'mon... Look at what they have done:
* They develop all their software under the GPL, which is something that cannot be said of other distros, such as SuSE or Slackware. * They developed RPM, which is arguably the BEST packaging system available for Linux now... So much so that virtually everyone else, with the exception of Slackware and Debian, are using it too, now. * They have done more than almost anyone else (except maybe Caldera) to legitimize Linux in the corporate setting. * They *DO* follow standards--their filesystem follows the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), and they appear to be actively supporting LSB.
I say, as long as they continue using the GPL, there is little possibility of them gaining proprietary competitive advantages over others the way Micro$oft does. And as to commercial software being developed for Red Hat: there is no reason why Red Hat competitors cannot taylor their distributions to work with those apps, too. And as the LSB gains more momentum, this will be less of a concern, too. I think the main reason some people are so scared about Red Hat is that they are trying to escape from the world of Micro$oft (justifiably) by using Linux, and are paranoid about ANYONE trying to make money at all with Linux.
But as I say, I think there is little real reason for panic here. There are many competitors that have taken Red Hat's features--examples: Linux Mandrake and BeroLinux, which have since merged. Red Hat 6.0 will narrow the gap between them, proving that true competition can yield good things... With the merge of BeroLinux with Mandrake now though, Mandrake's next competitive advantages will probably be Pentium/K6 optimization, and better integration of GNOME/KDE.
So overall, the only problem I have with Red Hat right now is their certification program. Otherwise, they are cool... And Red Hat 6.0 is going to be AWESOME when it comes out--I have been using Raw Hide for quite some time, and assuming 6.0 is going to be at all like Raw Hide, it will be AWESOME. I am a bit disappointed to see the reception it is getting in the press and by users so far... Especially since it will include *BOTH* GNOME and KDE.
For heavens sake, I'm getting a little bit fed up with this "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" thing... I mean, if you think about it, doesn't it seem a little silly to be arguing amongst ourselves over such things as what to NAME an OS?? No wonder some anti-OSS folks like Bill Gates point out that the OSS community becomes more and more fractured whenever issues like money or author credits are involved.
Now admittedly, RMS has brought more attention to GNU by taking his line with "GNU/Linux," but I must agree with KT on this; is it really the sort of attention that GNU deserves?? Don't get me wrong, I do think GNU deserves some credit, but I don't think attention just for the sake of attention is what RMS would ultimately want. If attention is to be given to something, it must be for a reason. In the case of Linux, it does have such a reason: its technical merits, and the fact that it is OSS.
I mean, really--the press would not be talking so much about Linux today if it weren't for the fact that Linux is an outstanding piece of software that is distributed freely. Anyone can distribute a program for free, but when you have an entire operating system, such as "Linux" (or "GNU/Linux") distributed in such a manner, this is what really gets attention... And for this reason: people have always assumed in the past that something like an operating system could only be undertaken by dedicated professionals who made their living by selling highly secretive intellectual property, like Microsoft. And then, out of the blue, along comes "Linux," proving for the first time what seemed before to be impossible. This is what gets attention. But the GNU project, as it stood, would not have gained attention on its own, and for this reason: it was not a complete, working system--it was rather in the state that Mozilla is in right now, if you don't mind... It was Linux that finally produced a working operating system that could prove to the world that such a thing as a free OS was in fact possible... And now look at it: the unthinkable is happening... A free OS, to compete with the world's most powerful multi-billion dollar corporation?? This would have been unthinkable in the past, not because of GNU, but because of Linux.
But GNU still does get attention as a result, because as KT said, one cannot learn about the history of Linux without discovering GNU and what it stands for.
And incidently, if we REALLY wanted to give credit to all who made this complete OS possible in Stallman-style, it would then be something like:
GNU/Linus Torvalds/Alan Cox/Cygnus Solutions/MIT X-Windows/The Open Group/BSD/David S. Miller/University of Washignton/I'm sorry about the people I forgot/Linux
Now doesn't that seem a little absurd?? So my point is, let's stop these massive flame wars about how to name an OS, and unite in the common cause of promoting what the OS really stands for.
I hope Red Hat is able to do something wonderful with all this money... Like upgrade their FTP servers; is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that their FTP servers are ALWAYS saturated? Seems like I can **NEVER** get through. I am getting really sick of this situation myself. And I know the classic excuse always is, "mirrors, mirrors, mirrors... Mirrors everywhere." But the problem is, 1) the mirrors are not always current, and 2) it is really annoying having to search for a good mirror all the time just to download something from them... Not everyone has this kind of time to go sifting through mirrors all the time.
They have the money--I want to see them upgrade their own FTP servers... Make it handle up to 3,600 users like Walnut Creek CDROM if needbe; this would also be a tribute to Linux's stability if it can scale up to that load, rather than the puny 100 user limit they have now. (Walnut Creek has a SINGLE FreeBSD machine, compared to MS's 40+ NT servers just to do anything close to Walnut Creek's traffic.) I am sick and tired of having Red Hat tell me that the mirrors are going to take up the slack for them all the time.
This is good news... Salon is popular, and a high profile switch from NT to Linux like this would be VERY good advertising, IMHO. BTW, anyone know if it get more than 1 million hits?? This would help debunk claims that Linux is not used for high-traffic sites (and no, Slashdot does not count, IMHO, with only 640,000 hits).
Sorry folks, but the fact of the matter is, I believe that guy earlier is quite right. Of course who am I? I am also a "young college student." But for my accounting class, MS Excel is a MINIMUM requirement. I know some of you folks (some of you might even be my peers) might start flaming me for saying this, but for accounting, one needs tools... And Linux has yet to deliver on this. Gnumeric looks promising, but it is too incomplete to really useful as the base tool for any serious accounting work yet. I *HATE* Micro$oft, but the real problem is that MS Office *IS* the corporate standard. I think many are now willing consider alternatives to Windows--there are some viable alternatives to it now. But for Linux to gain acceptance on the desktop, it *NEEDS* a viable alternative to M$ Office, and I'm sorry, but Gnumeric, StarOffice, etc. just don't cut it. WP is okay, but we need an integrated office SUITE to replace Office... And Corel is too far from completion to consider.
For that, I have to give M$ some credit--as much as I hate Bill Gates, this is one thing that has gained him the respect of the corporate world; he has delivered the needed tools. I do think they could be better, and Linux has the potential to deliver an alternative... But we just don't have one yet. That is why the corporate world seems to love Microsoft so much.
So if anybody wants to help step in and write these things instead of complaining all the time, I think some people (including myself) would appreciate it.
I agree that RMS deserves some credit, if for nothing else than creating the GPL (which the Linux kernel is covered by), and all the GNU utilities, which are so good that they are not only used in combination with Linux, but also with many other OSes, too. No doubt RMS should be recognized as ONE OF the leaders of the open source movement. I do think he may not be getting the recognition he deserves. But his attempt to force everyone to call it GNU/Linux is simply ludicrous. I am sure RMS would take credit for Linux if he could, because the fact of the matter is, FSF is having trouble getting the Hurd finished (it doesn't even have a random device yet), and I understand that the university of Utah, which originally created the microkernel that the Hurd was based on, has discontinued it. But I say, if RMS wants more recognition, why doesn't he:
1. Try creating his own distribution, calling it GNU Linux... Not GNU/Linux... But a DISTRIBUTION of his own, called GNU Linux, just like Red Hat Linux, SuSE Linux, or Stampede Linux. This would definitely associate Linux with The Cause.
2. I think he should shake hands with Linus, and recognize Linus's contribution to GNU... After all, though GNU may have ended up being a contribution to Linux, I think it could easily have been done the other way around--that is, Linux could have been considered a contribution to GNU. This would also give RMS more recognition.
Can someone say eccentric?
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
I think RMS sounds like an eccentric to me. I think I would agree with the previous comments that he probably would love to take the credit for Linux if he could. I mean, let's face it... The HURD is an interesting idea, but it is so far out that it cannot seem to get off the ground... The latest news on the GNU website is that they are at v0.2, and struggling just to get it to be usable. In various places, even they seem to hint that for practical purposes, they must use Linux, and not HURD... I mean, let's face it... The HURD doesn't even have a RANDOM device, for crying out loud! I agree RMS deserves some credit for all his work too, but there is a reason for Linus getting most of the credit: the kernel is probably the biggest single contribution given, even if it is only 3% of the entire system, which is probably accurate... In other words, that 3% is probably more than any other single contributed bit of code.
Actually, I think Stallman would get much more recognition if he simply adopted Linux as an official part of *THE* GNU system, and all the work Torvalds has done... In other words, I think the two should shake hands. Then we would have a situation where Linus made an acknowledged contribution to the GNU project, and Stallman would be equally acknowledged for his contributions... But NO, RMS wouldn't have it that way--heaven forbid if that should happen... Heaven forbid if his philosophical issues took second seat to technical ones.
Another thing: since his ideas are revolutionary to the proprietary software world, naturally there must be a REASON presented for why Open Source is superior, and the practical issues he dismisses so easily are probably the main reason why Open Source has penetrated the market as much as it has.
Raw Hide? No... It stinks. Red Hat, you listen!
on
Friday Quickies
·
· Score: 1
That's all very well, but I downloaded Raw Hide 1.2.9 (the latest version as I write this), tried to install it... And found that the installation is so broken right now it wouldn't find a single package... So I ended up using the 5.2 install disks just to get Raw Hide installed on my system... And *THEN*... As if that wasn't bad enough, I then found that the kernel wouldn't boot; it complained about a lack of memory, which is impossible, since I have 32 megs of RAM. So I then had to boot an emergency rescue disk and re-compile a new kernel just to get my new installation to BOOT... Then, as if that wasn't enough, X wouldn't work. Eventually, I traced this to a problem with GNOME. So right now, I have disabled GNOME support, and am stuck using AfterStep. Perhaps it is just me, but this is what I call poor, poor, poor. I realize it isn't meant to be stable, but I mean really, even Linux 2.1 was more stable than Raw Hide is right now. And as I say, if BeroLinux can do all this right here and *NOW*, then why can't Red Hat do this THEMSELVES?? Red Hat, I hope you are listening to this.
What BeroLinux seems to have done is rather elementary... Nothing in there by itself would qualify by me as breathtaking or amazing enough to make me switch permanently... But some of the features, like GNOME & KDE integration, and updated packages, are things that almost tempt me to switch, until RedHat 6.0 comes out, which is supposed to do these things itself... I hope BeroLinux, if nothing else, will convince Red Hat to step on it and get Red Hat 6.0 out *SOON*... IMHO, Red Hat is *BADLY* in need to being updated now... Some of the packages in 5.2 are as much a 3 or 4 generations behind the current versions, and I am getting sick and tired of grafting new things onto it all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Look folks, I believe that this is the real reason why the PlayStation will be gobbled up by the X-Box. Doesn't this sound rather like BetaMax all over again? It does to me. If Microsoft could put the knife to the throat of closed standards like OS/2, or Java, who's to doubt that they could also kill the PlayStation/2, too?!? Let's hop to it, folks! Let's beat Sony AND Microsoft, by making a Linux game console within the year! I vote that VA Linux Systems do it, as the Linux Hardware Leader for the Linux Community!!
Listen folks, Linux will not win its battle with Microsoft unless the community fights back. After all, this ad is the very sort of thing that Microsoft proposed in the Halloween Documents. And the corporate world actually listens to things like this.
:-)
I say the commercial champions of the Open Source/Linux community (i.e., Red Hat, VA Linux, Penguin Computing, etc.) should fight back by putting out ads that rebuke the point, by saying something like "The problem with Closed Source solutions like Windows 2000 is that they are tightly, centrally controlled, and the features you request or need cannot be added, unless Chairman Bill Says So."
Well folks, this clearly does make matters more difficult, both for the GCC Steering Committee, which now has to deal with the repurcussions of Red Hat's decision, and for people who use "2.96", which will not be binary-compatible with 2.95.2 or upcoming 3.0.
However, I don't think choosing which GCC version to use was this simple a matter for Red Hat. After all, they needed to maintain compatibility with the Linux kernel on the one hand, and have better I18N support on the other. The reason Red Hat included "2.96" was because they desperately wanted better I18N support... I'll bet it was probably because they are trying to compete on the international front, most particularly with GUESS WHO (hint: SuSE and TurboLinux). Heck, I'll admit I'd have a hard time deciding on this too, especially when it could mean $$$ for a company which has yet to make a profit. Then there was "KGCC", because after all, who wants a distro that has a non-working kernel?!?
I do think Red Hat has been a bit too eager to include bleeding-edge packages in its distros, but in some cases, including this one, it is NOT just done without careful consideration. I think they should be cut just a little slack on this one.
I think some people may be worried about this because of the viscious circle that unpopular platforms get into. I don't even think there is a name for it, but I'm sure everyone has thought of it at one time or another.
:-) Now, if the platform has no applications, it ain't much use now, is it?!? But what makes applications writers write applications for THAT platform? Money, of course. I admit this is more true in the proprietary (read: M$) world than in the open source world, but even so, I seem to recall that even Bob Young of Red Hat admitted once that unpopular platforms do suffer from the viscious circle: The platform is not very popular, because it doesn't have any apps!! This does make it kind of a useless platform, right!?!? But now why does it have no apps? Well, because the platform isn't popular... And hence no reason to develop apps for it.
The thing is, people don't generally buy into an OS or a platform merely for its own sake. If they buy an OS, chances are that they bought it because a) they need to do something with it, and b) they need to do something with it.
The question now becomes: HOW do you break this viscious circle? This is exactly the viscious circle companies like Microsoft hope will continue forever, which has helped them keep their monopoly position for so long!
Maybe some people are worried about SPARC Linux never being able to take off, since it was never popular do begin with?!? But surely if Red Hat discontinues it, they aren't helping to solve the problem, but rather making it worse, since now it will become even MORE unpopular!
Just food for thought! Then again, I could be wrong.
Couple of points here: 1) Somebody *HAS* written a Word converter for Linux--it's called WV, and it has also been incorporated into AbiWord for the AbiWord Word importer. It works pretty well, but as mentioned, that last 15% is the hardest part, and that part is constantly being worked on. 2) As for COM on Linux, what about Mozilla's XPCOM?
I see a potential for regression in the cause of open source software here though. I notice they say that they will make it easy for 3rd parties to write their own video drivers... But what if they decide to make them binary-only, and NOT covered by an open source license?? I don't like this idea at all, especially since it seems there are so many video card manufacturers (like ATI) who have shown that they are so unwilling to write open source code unless forced to.
For some reason, Slashdot did not nest my comment beneath this one before--so I'm trying again...
It is interesting that you mention this, because it just so happens that a similar thing happened to CP/M back in its heyday--developers actually started porting their CP/M applications to MS-DOS / PC-DOS because it was actually easier to port to DOS than it was to CP/M-86... So they started porting to DOS in spite of the installed CP/M user base... And look what happened!! This almost suggests that if we continue on this path, Linux will become the MS-DOS of the 90's... Isn't it wonderful how history repeats itself sometimes!?!?
Interesting that you mention this, because it just so happens that a similar thing happened to CP/M back in its heyday--developers actually started porting their CP/M applications to MS-DOS / PC-DOS because it was actually easier to port to DOS than it was to CP/M-86... So they started porting to DOS in spite of the installed CP/M user base... And look what happened!! This almost suggests that Linux will be the MS-DOS of the 90's... Isn't it wonderful how history repeats itself sometimes!?!?
The part about this law that sounds most frightening is the reverse-engineering clause. You realize that if this passes, efforts like WINE or Lesstif would basically become illegal? I'd hate to see this happen... WINE could really advance Linux in the marketplace if it actually became stable enough to run some "real world" Windows applications. So don't dismiss this so easily.
First of all, as a former OS/2 user, I can tell you that OS/2 was (and still is) a remarkably stable and well-engineered product when compared to Microsoft's Windows family. Yes, it has a few weaknesses (and some SERIOUS ones, IMHO), like the Single Input Queue, and the ugly little kludge they ended up implementing in the end to fix it... I agree with anyone who says that Windows 9x/NT's multiple asynchronous message queue is better. But I still found OS/2 to be much more stable and efficient than Windows. I later switched to Windows NT when I saw the writing on the wall that OS/2 was dead (mostly due to a lack of native OS/2 applications). I was figuring that since NT was originally based on the work done on OS/2 at the time, it would be most like OS/2 with regards to stability, etc. But unlike OS/2, I was disappointed to see that NT still crashed more often on me than OS/2 did... And NT took about 3 times longer to boot up than OS/2.
Granted, as a 100% pure Linux user now (I don't even do the dual-boot thing), I think even OS/2 is bloated, inefficient, and buggy compared to other alternatives, but leaving all other technical comparisons aside, let me say that this MS antitrust trial is **NOT** mainly about technical superiorities of one OS battling another one for market dominance. The point I am trying to make here is that yes, there are LOTS of alternatives to Windows, like MacOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, etc. Every one of them is arguably superior on the technical front to Windows today. But face it, had Microsoft been competing solely on the basis of the technical merits of their software in the marketplace, they would have been killed LONG ago. I can think of NOTHING more bloated, buggy, unstable, and inefficient that MS products.
It is the ANTI-COMPETITIVE tactics of MS that have resulted in their market share, and the scariest part is that there is evidence that they will now do ANYTHING to maintain their monopoly... Just consider how they DELIBERATELY tried to undermine and fracture the Java platform for example, all because they did not like the idea of "write once, run anywhere..." They saw it as a threat because it might open the door to make other OS's viable if they have software that would run anywhere. THAT is the key to their stranglehold on the OS market: Windows has about 70% or more of the software market running for it, and if it lost that advantage, they would almost surely die, as everyone (okay, even if only half of everyone) flocked to other OS's to get away from the bloated vaporware of MS.
The Internet itself also constitutes a potentially major long-term platform threat to Windows, for much the same reason--it is currently possible for ANYONE, with ANY operating system to surf the web. That is why they spent MILLIONS on developing Internet Explorer, and distributed it for free, and tied it to Windows, and then proclaimed that it would damage Windows if it were removed (which as 98Lite demonstrates, is nothing more than a complete, straight-out LIE). Their ultimate goal is slowly to commoditize the infrastructure, and make the Internet proprietary, so you MUST use Windows to use it. Look at the Halloween Documents if you need proof. Remember this, people.
And also remember, Bill Gates is a sick, demented, power-hungry person, IMHO. I am not saying he is dumb; I think he is one of the SMARTEST people in the world. I seriously admire his knowledge and knack for making intelligent business decisions, too. But face it, when he says things like "I must admit, I find it hard to concentrate lots of resources on trials and things, when the Internet is eroding our power everyday" (quoted from ZDNet, thank you), I think this is a sign of a man who cares only about hanging on to POWER. That is NOT healthy, IMHO.
Please remember this folks. I do not want to be held captive by a company that is willing to LIE to the public, and CHEAT just to maintain a monopoly as Microsoft is doing. That is why I think there is even more serious evil to be seen if this trial does not do something to neutralize the threat. That is why I am an avid Anti-Microsoft advocate, and that is why I think it is necessary to speak up loudly like this for ACTION.
And remember, GO MOZILLA!! It is our single most promising hope of re-gaining the momentum of W3C STANDARDS-compliance.
The UI is certainly slow. But look at the rendering of pages--that is FAST. The reason for the UI slowness is because of some well-known bugs which the Mozilla team has been wrestling with for over 3 milestones now.
:-)
Basically, the problem is that incremental reflow causes the entire window to get repainted, often times more than once. You can probably imagine that this would slow it down. They are working on this, but it isn't easy... It is particularly a problem under Linux, with GTK (Windows doesn't notice it as much, from what I've heard). They need more GTK experts to help them.
So please, HELP MOZILLA!! And feel free to give it another try. Don't be scared. It's only a lizard.
From what I've read in the public.netscape.mozilla.gtk newsgroup, it looks like GtkMozilla is also soon going to be put into the main tree, possibly under /mozilla/webshell/embed/gtk. The ActiveX wrapper is in /mozilla/webshell/embed/ActiveX.
Offhand, I'd say that this GTK widget *will* allow embedding like the ActiveX control. After all, even if GTK itself changed in the future, what then? I should think all it would mean was some "tweaking" of the GtkMozilla code to work with the newer GTK. Likewise if the Mozilla code changed. Same goes for the ActiveX control, if Micro$oft one day decided (heaven forbid) to change the ActiveX standards slightly. In fact, I wonder if this isn't already coming--I understand they are working on COM+ as we speak.
Incidently, I also know that the GNOME Project has been trying for some time to find a way of embedding browser-like functionality into things like the file manager and the help system... And so far, all they have really are things like the Express browser, which is not very far beyond the planning stage.
My hope is that GtkMozilla will finally bridge this gap... I wonder, does anybody know if the NPL/MPL would allow this? I am assuming it would, if they are already going to allow people to embed the ActiveX control in their programs. But does anyone here more knowledgeable about licenses than me want to confirm this?
Well, I say this is a GREAT development, though perhaps a little overhyped at the moment. The reason I say this is that though it is indeed looking better and better with every passing moment, it is still has a ways to go before it catches up to the levels of maturity that products like Microsoft Word or Corel WordPerfect are at. AbiWord still lacks many features that any sensible critic would rightly point out are essential in a modern word processor. And ultimately, the fact of the matter is, people will not make the switch to an open source product like this unless it offers them at LEAST the minimal set of features that they NEED to get real work done. I don't think AbiWord has reached that level yet.
But this is still good--it is always good to see competition. Given a little more time, I think this product may well be in a position to compete head-to-head with Corel soon, not only for technical merits, but for its licensing terms. WordPerfect, though it may be free, it is still essentially proprietary. And if given the choice between two products that are almost identical on technical merits, I believe people will then start making the choice based on which one has more liberal licensing terms. Therefore, this might ultimately also put pressure on Corel to open-source their code as well, maybe under terms similar to those of licenses like the NPL and MPL. In my opinion, these are VERY good open source licenses to look at (and possibly model after), which even take business considerations into account. (But that's a slightly different topic.)
Anyway, my main point is that I think it is healthy to see competition like this that might lead to more open sourcing of proprietary products. If this trend continues, maybe someday we will in fact see nothing but open source software as a result. Now wouldn't THAT be wonderful!
Well folks, I would say this is not completely unwelcome--4.6 does seem a little more stable than 4.51 was, although even so, I still can't get it to run more than a few minutes without crashing. And worst of all, unlike the current Mozilla SeaMonkey project, 4.6 is still proprietary, so don't even think about trying to go into the code and trying to fix the bugs yourself... If you don't like the bugs, tough--you'll have to live with them. Personally, I think Netscape has got to be the most unstable, bloated piece of software I've seen for Linux yet. I think the Linux platform is desperately in need of a better browser. I say, while 4.6 is a nice interim measure, at the same time, I hope Netscape isn't spending too much in the way of resources on the 4.x line still, for as Jamie Zawinski said, Netscape sunk a huge amount of engineering effort into the 4.5 release in 1998, and that was a huge blow to Mozilla.
.XUL files. These are really cool.
And on this front, I would say that Mozilla SeaMonkey is currently our best (and maybe our only) hope of getting a better browser for Linux... And what could be better? It is even open source! I therefore would like to call to all of you to help with the Mozilla project. Let us prove to Jamie Zawinski that all Mozilla needed was a little time.
I am one of the people who is contributing. Admittedly, I am not much of a coder--I only just completed some introductory C/C++ courses. But you do not even have to know C/C++ to do things like file bug reports, or even just give tips. For example, check this out. These open source tools were suggested to them by me.
Or, check out bug reports, like this. I submitted the patch that fixed that bug.
My point is, you don't have to know much about programming to help. And I think Mozilla deserves all the help it can get right now. So please, let us help Mozilla.
In case you people want to know what Mozilla is like... Let me say:
1) It is a radical departure from the old Netscape, and about time, too.
2) It is STANDARDS based. Example: ALL CSS1 properties are now supported.
3) It is truly cross-platform, unlike IE. Cross-platform UIs are built using a form of XML, in
4) It will support Skins (or Chrome), much like WinAmp. Skins anyone??
5) Also please check out MozillaZine. They have some chrome available there.
I cannot get Mozilla M5 to compile on my Red Hat 6.0 system. Apart from the thousands of compiler warnings I get, it eventually gives up. Any ideas why?
Sorry folks, but in all fairness, I must point out that Linux has yet to garner such a rating. Yes, I agree NT's C2 rating is bogus. However, Linux currently does NOT have what's needed to earn a C2 rating either. ACLs are one of the things needed for a C2 rating, and Linux does not have this. However, NT DOES. So don't dismiss NT so easily. It has some great security potential.
Incidently, Trusted Solaris could probably get better than a C2 rating, and Secure HP-UX I believe, has earned a B3 rating.
But I think the Linux community should work on certifying Linux as at LEAST a C2 if it seriously hopes to compete with Microsoft's PR game... I mean, let's face it, MS may be making bogus claims, but the pity of it is, there are a lot of managers out there in the corporate world that actually buy MS's claims. I think the only way to fight fire is with fire.
I think Red Hat deserves praise--I mean, c'mon... Look at what they have done:
* They develop all their software under the GPL, which is something that cannot be said of other distros, such as SuSE or Slackware.
* They developed RPM, which is arguably the BEST packaging system available for Linux now... So much so that virtually everyone else, with the exception of Slackware and Debian, are using it too, now.
* They have done more than almost anyone else (except maybe Caldera) to legitimize Linux in the corporate setting.
* They *DO* follow standards--their filesystem follows the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), and they appear to be actively supporting LSB.
I say, as long as they continue using the GPL, there is little possibility of them gaining proprietary competitive advantages over others the way Micro$oft does. And as to commercial software being developed for Red Hat: there is no reason why Red Hat competitors cannot taylor their distributions to work with those apps, too. And as the LSB gains more momentum, this will be less of a concern, too. I think the main reason some people are so scared about Red Hat is that they are trying to escape from the world of Micro$oft (justifiably) by using Linux, and are paranoid about ANYONE trying to make money at all with Linux.
But as I say, I think there is little real reason for panic here. There are many competitors that have taken Red Hat's features--examples: Linux Mandrake and BeroLinux, which have since merged. Red Hat 6.0 will narrow the gap between them, proving that true competition can yield good things... With the merge of BeroLinux with Mandrake now though, Mandrake's next competitive advantages will probably be Pentium/K6 optimization, and better integration of GNOME/KDE.
So overall, the only problem I have with Red Hat right now is their certification program. Otherwise, they are cool... And Red Hat 6.0 is going to be AWESOME when it comes out--I have been using Raw Hide for quite some time, and assuming 6.0 is going to be at all like Raw Hide, it will be AWESOME. I am a bit disappointed to see the reception it is getting in the press and by users so far... Especially since it will include *BOTH* GNOME and KDE.
For heavens sake, I'm getting a little bit fed up with this "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" thing... I mean, if you think about it, doesn't it seem a little silly to be arguing amongst ourselves over such things as what to NAME an OS?? No wonder some anti-OSS folks like Bill Gates point out that the OSS community becomes more and more fractured whenever issues like money or author credits are involved.
Now admittedly, RMS has brought more attention to GNU by taking his line with "GNU/Linux," but I must agree with KT on this; is it really the sort of attention that GNU deserves?? Don't get me wrong, I do think GNU deserves some credit, but I don't think attention just for the sake of attention is what RMS would ultimately want. If attention is to be given to something, it must be for a reason. In the case of Linux, it does have such a reason: its technical merits, and the fact that it is OSS.
I mean, really--the press would not be talking so much about Linux today if it weren't for the fact that Linux is an outstanding piece of software that is distributed freely. Anyone can distribute a program for free, but when you have an entire operating system, such as "Linux" (or "GNU/Linux") distributed in such a manner, this is what really gets attention... And for this reason: people have always assumed in the past that something like an operating system could only be undertaken by dedicated professionals who made their living by selling highly secretive intellectual property, like Microsoft. And then, out of the blue, along comes "Linux," proving for the first time what seemed before to be impossible. This is what gets attention. But the GNU project, as it stood, would not have gained attention on its own, and for this reason: it was not a complete, working system--it was rather in the state that Mozilla is in right now, if you don't mind... It was Linux that finally produced a working operating system that could prove to the world that such a thing as a free OS was in fact possible... And now look at it: the unthinkable is happening... A free OS, to compete with the world's most powerful multi-billion dollar corporation?? This would have been unthinkable in the past, not because of GNU, but because of Linux.
But GNU still does get attention as a result, because as KT said, one cannot learn about the history of Linux without discovering GNU and what it stands for.
And incidently, if we REALLY wanted to give credit to all who made this complete OS possible in Stallman-style, it would then be something like:
GNU/Linus Torvalds/Alan Cox/Cygnus Solutions/MIT X-Windows/The Open Group/BSD/David S. Miller/University of Washignton/I'm sorry about the people I forgot/Linux
Now doesn't that seem a little absurd?? So my point is, let's stop these massive flame wars about how to name an OS, and unite in the common cause of promoting what the OS really stands for.
I hope Red Hat is able to do something wonderful with all this money... Like upgrade their FTP servers; is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that their FTP servers are ALWAYS saturated? Seems like I can **NEVER** get through. I am getting really sick of this situation myself. And I know the classic excuse always is, "mirrors, mirrors, mirrors... Mirrors everywhere." But the problem is, 1) the mirrors are not always current, and 2) it is really annoying having to search for a good mirror all the time just to download something from them... Not everyone has this kind of time to go sifting through mirrors all the time.
They have the money--I want to see them upgrade their own FTP servers... Make it handle up to 3,600 users like Walnut Creek CDROM if needbe; this would also be a tribute to Linux's stability if it can scale up to that load, rather than the puny 100 user limit they have now. (Walnut Creek has a SINGLE FreeBSD machine, compared to MS's 40+ NT servers just to do anything close to Walnut Creek's traffic.) I am sick and tired of having Red Hat tell me that the mirrors are going to take up the slack for them all the time.
This is good news... Salon is popular, and a high profile switch from NT to Linux like this would be VERY good advertising, IMHO. BTW, anyone know if it get more than 1 million hits?? This would help debunk claims that Linux is not used for high-traffic sites (and no, Slashdot does not count, IMHO, with only 640,000 hits).
Sorry folks, but the fact of the matter is, I believe that guy earlier is quite right. Of course who am I? I am also a "young college student." But for my accounting class, MS Excel is a MINIMUM requirement. I know some of you folks (some of you might even be my peers) might start flaming me for saying this, but for accounting, one needs tools... And Linux has yet to deliver on this. Gnumeric looks promising, but it is too incomplete to really useful as the base tool for any serious accounting work yet. I *HATE* Micro$oft, but the real problem is that MS Office *IS* the corporate standard. I think many are now willing consider alternatives to Windows--there are some viable alternatives to it now. But for Linux to gain acceptance on the desktop, it *NEEDS* a viable alternative to M$ Office, and I'm sorry, but Gnumeric, StarOffice, etc. just don't cut it. WP is okay, but we need an integrated office SUITE to replace Office... And Corel is too far from completion to consider.
For that, I have to give M$ some credit--as much as I hate Bill Gates, this is one thing that has gained him the respect of the corporate world; he has delivered the needed tools. I do think they could be better, and Linux has the potential to deliver an alternative... But we just don't have one yet. That is why the corporate world seems to love Microsoft so much.
So if anybody wants to help step in and write these things instead of complaining all the time, I think some people (including myself) would appreciate it.
I agree that RMS deserves some credit, if for nothing else than creating the GPL (which the Linux kernel is covered by), and all the GNU utilities, which are so good that they are not only used in combination with Linux, but also with many other OSes, too. No doubt RMS should be recognized as ONE OF the leaders of the open source movement. I do think he may not be getting the recognition he deserves. But his attempt to force everyone to call it GNU/Linux is simply ludicrous. I am sure RMS would take credit for Linux if he could, because the fact of the matter is, FSF is having trouble getting the Hurd finished (it doesn't even have a random device yet), and I understand that the university of Utah, which originally created the microkernel that the Hurd was based on, has discontinued it. But I say, if RMS wants more recognition, why doesn't he:
1. Try creating his own distribution, calling it GNU Linux... Not GNU/Linux... But a DISTRIBUTION of his own, called GNU Linux, just like Red Hat Linux, SuSE Linux, or Stampede Linux. This would definitely associate Linux with The Cause.
2. I think he should shake hands with Linus, and recognize Linus's contribution to GNU... After all, though GNU may have ended up being a contribution to Linux, I think it could easily have been done the other way around--that is, Linux could have been considered a contribution to GNU. This would also give RMS more recognition.
I think RMS sounds like an eccentric to me. I think I would agree with the previous comments that he probably would love to take the credit for Linux if he could. I mean, let's face it... The HURD is an interesting idea, but it is so far out that it cannot seem to get off the ground... The latest news on the GNU website is that they are at v0.2, and struggling just to get it to be usable. In various places, even they seem to hint that for practical purposes, they must use Linux, and not HURD... I mean, let's face it... The HURD doesn't even have a RANDOM device, for crying out loud! I agree RMS deserves some credit for all his work too, but there is a reason for Linus getting most of the credit: the kernel is probably the biggest single contribution given, even if it is only 3% of the entire system, which is probably accurate... In other words, that 3% is probably more than any other single contributed bit of code.
Actually, I think Stallman would get much more recognition if he simply adopted Linux as an official part of *THE* GNU system, and all the work Torvalds has done... In other words, I think the two should shake hands. Then we would have a situation where Linus made an acknowledged contribution to the GNU project, and Stallman would be equally acknowledged for his contributions... But NO, RMS wouldn't have it that way--heaven forbid if that should happen... Heaven forbid if his philosophical issues took second seat to technical ones.
Another thing: since his ideas are revolutionary to the proprietary software world, naturally there must be a REASON presented for why Open Source is superior, and the practical issues he dismisses so easily are probably the main reason why Open Source has penetrated the market as much as it has.
That's all very well, but I downloaded Raw Hide 1.2.9 (the latest version as I write this), tried to install it... And found that the installation is so broken right now it wouldn't find a single package... So I ended up using the 5.2 install disks just to get Raw Hide installed on my system... And *THEN*... As if that wasn't bad enough, I then found that the kernel wouldn't boot; it complained about a lack of memory, which is impossible, since I have 32 megs of RAM. So I then had to boot an emergency rescue disk and re-compile a new kernel just to get my new installation to BOOT... Then, as if that wasn't enough, X wouldn't work. Eventually, I traced this to a problem with GNOME. So right now, I have disabled GNOME support, and am stuck using AfterStep. Perhaps it is just me, but this is what I call poor, poor, poor. I realize it isn't meant to be stable, but I mean really, even Linux 2.1 was more stable than Raw Hide is right now. And as I say, if BeroLinux can do all this right here and *NOW*, then why can't Red Hat do this THEMSELVES?? Red Hat, I hope you are listening to this.
What BeroLinux seems to have done is rather elementary... Nothing in there by itself would qualify by me as breathtaking or amazing enough to make me switch permanently... But some of the features, like GNOME & KDE integration, and updated packages, are things that almost tempt me to switch, until RedHat 6.0 comes out, which is supposed to do these things itself... I hope BeroLinux, if nothing else, will convince Red Hat to step on it and get Red Hat 6.0 out *SOON*... IMHO, Red Hat is *BADLY* in need to being updated now... Some of the packages in 5.2 are as much a 3 or 4 generations behind the current versions, and I am getting sick and tired of grafting new things onto it all the time.