Just because compression format allows for IDs and shit, doesn't mean the player has to use this info. If the format is sooo good it will be hacked, so the players could be made to ignore the IDs.
I installed RH5.2 just fine. But you can't expect general public to RTFM. Besides, I am not aware of any snapshots, or good detailed description of packages. It didn't even tell me what other packages I needed for each of them. Good thing I had a clue. I was still surprised to see the little amount of info given out (at least by default).
RedHat install does not describe the packages it is about to install, so a new user who never heard of, say, pine, and who saw its description as a mail program might think it's Eudora for Linux. An install that does not explain what the software is (preferably including snapshots), just doesn't cut it. They do have good hardware detection though.
Aside from the license, there are generic copyright provisions. For example, there are people who provide schoolkids with shortened transcripts of major novels, so those kids could ace their tests without reading their books. Do the authors of such short transcripts have to purchase the right to distribute their derivative work from original writer? Can they describe the content without infringing on the copyright?
Given the number of bugs in M$ products, claiming that their software is not of GNU quality is not an offense, merely a truthful statement. And besides, all code can improve. I do not see any offense in the letter. It was short and to the point.
Uh, unless I am very much mistaken, it is impossible to write an OS without having a large clue stick about the underlying hardware. And in Linus' case, I'd definately trust him with both Intel hardware capabilities and the performance of his OS on its primary hardware platform.
In any sane country this would be true. Not in the US. But IANAL. I also have a related question. If someone looks at M$ code and derives the description of what is needed for compatibility, something equivalent to IETF specs, then can this document be used by WINE developers. In other words, is documenting the standards a violation of copyright?
I'm just wondering why anything under any license is considered free software. You'd think free software is strictly that which is public domain. License pretty much by definition puts restrictions on use.
Open Source useless in this and similar cases
on
Open Source Windows
·
· Score: 1
I do not think that they can or do realistically hope that OSS community will contribute even if they open up code. If nothing else, the stigma of being M$ will prevent active work on the source. They seem to realize this and only claim that opensourcing will increase confidence level of consumers. However, if they were to do this, it would effectively negate their main market advantage, namely the undocumented, proprietary standards. Imagine having a well-documented description (i.e. source) of Windows Driver Model. Within possibly weeks, Linux will have the ability to use Windows drivers. Likewise, WIN32 APIs will then quickly be reimplemented in Wine. In short, if we knew what Windows is, there'd be no need for Windows, and there'd be other systems totally compatible but better. Thus, open source for Windows would be very useful.
Given Mozilla's choice of GTK for toolkit, it would be reasonable to expect it's integration with Gnome, as a kind of KFM on steroids, if it were released under GPL. That would certainly boost outside (non-Netscape) efforts, perhaps to a point where GNU would adopt it as one of its projects, eliminating any perception of Netscape control, at which point a lot more people would feel comfortable contributing to the project. My guess is that people are comfortable with GPL or BSD licenses but other licenses which do not have as much history or appear slanted toward one company generate uncertainty and doubt (usually not fear), no matter how open those other licenses are.
Besides the flaws with Mozilla development that other people have pointed out, the slow going of the project may be the result of NPL. While being a "open source" license it gives Netscape a priviledged position, hence people were and are cautious about contributing to the project. One has to wonder how much development their code would get if it were released under pure BSD license. But even with all of the above, the project IS coming together and IS NOT dead. When the going gets tough, the development goes slower, that's all.
I think he was not advocatng less documentation, rather he advocated making cryptic arcane and powerful (in his mind these are synonimous) OS. He repeatedly uses the acronym RTFM, which implies he advocates more documentation.
Once again, I only meant to suggest something, not offend anyone. OTOH, why can't I say I am sick of something (a personal feeling or opinion) when I indeed feel that way?
When it comes to/. stories specifically, it'd be nice to know what's changing, while not having it in the news. Blocking/. stories in preferences is almost a good solution, but it then forces me to exert an extra effort to find the log of changes, if I feel like looking it up. Put differently, I'd rather see a cumulative log of changes for a month than small bits and pieces here and there.
Uhm, no physics department of reasonable quality and repute will claim that getting a job in the field is easy, or that yo can earn a lot of money there. All the people I talked to in choosing a grad school made sure I knew that the opposite was true.
I certainly appreciate the hard work that is put into improving slashdot. However, I am quite sick of reading about every smallish change in big letters on the front page. Maybe/. could have a section where updates and improvement would be listed without interrupting the real news. Please note, I mean this as a suggestion, and do not wish to offend anyone.
I did not ask the original question but here is a more pointed one that interests me: if you were to pull say an optical nerve out of a human body and looked at it as a medium for information transmission, then what would be the maximum bandwidth one could get with it (at least the order of magnitude)?
The way I understood the original post was that by the time IBM (or ingeneral copyright holder) decides to revoke its license, the software will be obsolete anyway. And even if it weren't yet obsolete, a OSS rewrite of revoked code would still be a good refresher for the code. I further think that the threat of license revocation will force programmers not to depend too deeply on that package in their software, thus encouraging modular design. So in the grand scheme of things (i.e. ignoring how much effort goes into programming), such licenses may not be too bad.
Uh, I would think twice before touting prolonged software life as a positive thing. Regular redesign from ground up is like a prostate exam: it's a pain but it's good for you.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the new upcoming MPEG standard
was going to be based on QT, in which case
at least some codecs would open up.
Just because compression format allows for IDs and shit, doesn't
mean the player has to use this info. If the format is sooo good
it will be hacked, so the players could be made to ignore the IDs.
I installed RH5.2 just fine. But you
can't expect general public to RTFM.
Besides, I am not aware of any snapshots,
or good detailed description of packages.
It didn't even tell me what other packages
I needed for each of them. Good thing I had
a clue. I was still surprised to see the
little amount of info given out (at least by
default).
RedHat install does not describe the packages it is
about to install, so a new user who never heard of,
say, pine, and who saw its description as a mail
program might think it's Eudora for Linux. An install
that does not explain what the software is (preferably
including snapshots), just doesn't cut it.
They do have good hardware detection though.
So when GPL states that one must redistribute code based on GLP'ed
code, that restriction is hogwash?
Aside from the license, there are generic copyright provisions.
For example, there are people who provide schoolkids with
shortened transcripts of major novels, so those kids could
ace their tests without reading their books. Do the authors of
such short transcripts have to purchase the right to distribute
their derivative work from original writer? Can they describe
the content without infringing on the copyright?
My numbers on Altavista:
+"linux" : 2,283,417
+"GNU/linux" : 18032
Comes to about 126 to 1
Given the number of bugs in M$ products,
claiming that their software is not of
GNU quality is not an offense, merely a
truthful statement. And besides, all
code can improve.
I do not see any offense in the letter.
It was short and to the point.
Uh, unless I am very much mistaken,
it is impossible to write an OS without
having a large clue stick about the
underlying hardware. And in Linus' case,
I'd definately trust him with both
Intel hardware capabilities and the
performance of his OS on its primary
hardware platform.
In any sane country this would be true. Not in the US.
But IANAL.
I also have a related question. If someone looks at M$
code and derives the description of what is needed for
compatibility, something equivalent to IETF specs,
then can this document be used by WINE developers.
In other words, is documenting the standards a violation
of copyright?
In any sane country this would be true. Not in the US.
But IANAL.
I also have a related question. If someone looks at M$
code and derives the description of what is needed for
compatibility, something equivalent to IETF specs,
then can this document be used by WINE developers.
In other words, is documenting the standards a violation
of copyright?
I'm just wondering why anything under any license is
considered free software. You'd think free software is
strictly that which is public domain. License pretty
much by definition puts restrictions on use.
I do not think that they can or do realistically hope that
OSS community will contribute even if they open up code.
If nothing else, the stigma of being M$ will prevent active
work on the source. They seem to realize this and only claim
that opensourcing will increase confidence level of consumers.
However, if they were to do this, it would effectively negate
their main market advantage, namely the undocumented,
proprietary standards. Imagine having a well-documented
description (i.e. source) of Windows Driver Model. Within
possibly weeks, Linux will have the ability to use Windows drivers.
Likewise, WIN32 APIs will then quickly be reimplemented
in Wine. In short, if we knew what Windows is, there'd be no
need for Windows, and there'd be other systems totally
compatible but better. Thus, open source for Windows would
be very useful.
Given Mozilla's choice of GTK for toolkit, it would be reasonable
to expect it's integration with Gnome, as a kind of KFM on steroids,
if it were released under GPL.
That would certainly boost outside (non-Netscape) efforts, perhaps
to a point where GNU would adopt it as one of its projects,
eliminating any perception of Netscape control, at which point
a lot more people would feel comfortable contributing to the project.
My guess is that people are comfortable with GPL or BSD licenses
but other licenses which do not have as much history or appear
slanted toward one company generate uncertainty and doubt
(usually not fear), no matter how open those other licenses are.
Besides the flaws with Mozilla development
that other people have pointed out, the
slow going of the project may be the result
of NPL. While being a "open source" license
it gives Netscape a priviledged position,
hence people were and are cautious about
contributing to the project. One has to wonder
how much development their code would get if
it were released under pure BSD license.
But even with all of the above, the project
IS coming together and IS NOT dead. When the
going gets tough, the development goes slower,
that's all.
I think he was not advocatng less documentation,
rather he advocated making cryptic arcane and
powerful (in his mind these are synonimous) OS.
He repeatedly uses the acronym RTFM, which
implies he advocates more documentation.
Once again, I only meant to suggest something,
not offend anyone. OTOH, why can't I say I am
sick of something (a personal feeling or opinion)
when I indeed feel that way?
When it comes to /. stories specifically, /.
it'd be nice to know what's changing,
while not having it in the news. Blocking
stories in preferences is almost a good
solution, but it then forces me to exert an
extra effort to find the log of changes,
if I feel like looking it up. Put differently,
I'd rather see a cumulative log of changes
for a month than small bits and pieces here
and there.
Uhm, no physics department of reasonable
quality and repute will claim that getting
a job in the field is easy, or that yo can
earn a lot of money there. All the people
I talked to in choosing a grad school made
sure I knew that the opposite was true.
I certainly appreciate the hard work that is /. could have a section where updates and
put into improving slashdot. However, I am
quite sick of reading about every smallish
change in big letters on the front page.
Maybe
improvement would be listed without interrupting
the real news.
Please note, I mean this as a suggestion, and do
not wish to offend anyone.
I did not ask the original question but here is a more
pointed one that interests me: if you were to pull
say an optical nerve out of a human body and looked at
it as a medium for information transmission, then what
would be the maximum bandwidth one could get with
it (at least the order of magnitude)?
The way I understood the original post was that by the time IBM
(or ingeneral copyright holder) decides to revoke its license, the
software will be obsolete anyway. And even if it weren't yet obsolete,
a OSS rewrite of revoked code would still be a good refresher for the code.
I further think that the threat of license revocation will force programmers
not to depend too deeply on that package in their software, thus
encouraging modular design. So in the grand scheme of things (i.e. ignoring
how much effort goes into programming), such licenses may not be too bad.
Sendmail??? Doesn't need redesign from ground up? Sendmail???
Uh, I would think twice before touting prolonged software life
as a positive thing. Regular redesign from ground up is like a
prostate exam: it's a pain but it's good for you.
I said they were headed toward the wallet stuff.