I think everyone is missing the point of Bluetooth, at least in the context of this article. If you read the article (all the way to the end) you will realize that they are speaking of using Bluetooth in the Palm to connect to a Bluetooth-enabled cellphone, which is where the actual access will come from.
I thought this was kind of obvious though. The first time I heard of Bluetooth, the first thing I thought was a PDA/Phone combo. --
As I understand it, Darwin is essentially OSX, sans Quartz and the MacOS compatability layer.
First of all, I think we should give credit to Apple for doing this. Yes, I know it's not GPL. I am not sure but I would hazard a guess that the Apple Public License is NOT a certified (by OSI) Open Source (TM) licence. However, this is a great start. We should not flame Apple for not using the GPL but instead encourage them and other companies to do the same. As an aside, anyone know why the didn't just use a BSD license?
Finally, could anyone tell me if they know whether or not OSX is OpenStep compliant? ie, when Quicktime for OSX is released, would it be possible to run it under GNUstep? And further, what are people's opinions on OpenStep/GNUstep? I have been interested lately, and I think that given all the discussion going on lately about cross platform compatability, we should just go ahead and have all the distros be OpenStep compliant. If you would like more information, check out the GNUstep website.
I just refreshed my page, and then POOF! the story was gone. Anyone care to explain where/why it went?
[sarcasm]It must be VA/Andover exercising their "editorial control". I'm discouraged to see that the governed has the Linux companies firmly in its grasp as well...[/sarcasm]
But seriously though. What happened? I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation...
When I first started using Linux (about a year ago), what impressed me the most was that you weren't locked into a single, all-encompassing solution. Everything was (and is) so modular. Tools like grep, ls, cat, head, etc. and the use of pipes just seemed so refreshing to me, someone who had been using MS-DOS (including Win95) for as long as I can remember. Even in the GUI, there was the display server, the font server, the window manager...
I see desktop environments as being very contradictory to the traditional UNIX philosophy of "do one thing, but do it very well". We have the two leading desktop environments, Gnome and KDE, which are rapidly expanding to include everything under the sun. Is an office suite really part of a desktop environment? Is an email client? Terminal emulator? Web browser?
Personally, I think the answer is no. I want the freedom to choose my desktop shell, my email client, my web browser, and my office suite.
To get to the point, my question is this: do you believe that the notion of a "Complete Desktop Environment" contradicts the traditional UNIX philosophy? If so, why do you feel the need to change something that has obviously worked so well for so long?
If you would like to know, I would personally prefer that Gnome consist of the panel and shell ONLY, and then we could have something like Helix which could package the panel and shell with a nice browser (branded mozilla maybe), window manager (sawmill or e), etc. I definitely believe there is a need for an open-source office suite, but I think the development should go on outside of Gnome or KDE core.
I am curious about other people's opinions on this as well, email me with any thoughts...
I'm not Miguel, but I think I can answer this one. In the previous Eazel threads, many people have pointed out the fact that the Eazel product is destined to become the Gnome 2.0 desktop shell.
So the answer to your question would be a resounding YES, mozilla technology will be integrated into Gnome. As an aside, I agree with you completely and would find it ridiculous that the Open Source Community would put so much work into a project (Mozilla) and then let other projects duplicate effort (Gnome and KDE).
Perhaps this could be a question to KDE developers: Are there any plans to integrate Gecko into Konqueror?
Well, I must say that at first glance I thought this post was a troll. But apparently someone had moderated it _up_, so I thought I'd take a look.
It took you ten paragraphs to say what you summarized in the final one:
one thing is quite obvious; MS is going to own a vast portion of the home market for years to come and there is no Magical Sofware / User Interface Paradigm on the horizon that could concievably change that.
Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but if your theory were true, PCs, and the internet for that matter, would not exist as they do today. Yes, some people are resistant to change. Yet for every person who was content, for example, with MS-DOS, there was another person who couldn't get over how gee-whiz cool Windows 3.1 was. Many of those people were IT managers, and people began to learn Windows because that's what they used at work. And as most of us know, Windows _is_ DOS. If people were as resistant to change as you say, everyone would have stayed with the CLI.
My point is similar to one Jakob has made before. There is very little left to squeeze out of the WIMP UI paradigm. Yes, if KDE, Gnome, and others continue to try and make everything act like Windows (or, as Jakob puts it, like Lisa), non-techie users will be reluctant to change. However, give them a new, gee-whiz technology, or something that looks like one, and IT managers will come in droves. And the home users will follow.
I believe it is important to make the distinction between quantitiy of communication and quality of communication. The issue is not whether or not we communicate more on the net, but whether we communicate better. Let me explain what I mean.
I believe that without question, the rise of the internet has given people an ability to communicate more often, and with less work. Compare letter writing of decades ago with the email that most of us exchange with friends. A letter would take weeks to turn around, while an email can take minutes.
But is more communication desirable? I'm not sure it is. I believe that the more we substitute things like ICQ and email for face-to-face contact, the more we dilute the message. To give an example, I have a couple of friends who are in Europe, while I am in Canada. I think it is much more meaningful and fulfilling to send them a long and well thought out letter once a year than it is to exchange typical and mundane pleasantries on ICQ every night. In fact, I would rather not talk to the person than have a typical ICQ exchange.
"Hey, what's up?" "Not much, you?" "Not much. Got an essay due tomorrow." "That sucks." "Yeah." "So what's up?" ETC.
So I believe that the net is making us more isolated. We are communicating more than ever before, but never has the message been more insignificant. IRC and ICQ promote sound-bite communication. Email has in many cases become a crutch, or more accurately a shield, for docile and cowardly people. It is not hard to see why there are so many flames. Yet I defy you to find a handful of people who would actually defend their opinions in person.
And an on-topic question, does anybody know what McLuhan thinks of the new media? I would be very interested to know.
Although the author has some very valid points, it seems to me that these points are somewhat misdirected. Most of the issues he raises should be aimed at the Linux industry, not the Linux community. Although the former has a direct reliance on, or more specifically a symbiotic relationship with, the latter.
Linux, as it stands, is without question a techie OS, and I would like to see it stay that way. I believe that it is companies like Caldera, and Red Hat I suppose, who need to "grok" the concepts the author is proposing, but only if they wish to make as much money as possible. There may be a need for a Microsoft Word look-and-feel-alike, however it is NOT the duty of the Linux community to create one. It may be a good idea for Red Hat to do so.
What I particularily dislike is the author's feeling that the Linux community should answer to the customers and the businesses. To me it seems patently obvious that this will never be the case. The Linux community will go on doing what is does best, which is serve itself, and encourage others to adopt Linux and open standards. If anyone needs to dumb down Linux, it is companies like Red Hat and Corel.
Slashdot Mirror
I think everyone is missing the point of Bluetooth, at least in the context of this article. If you read the article (all the way to the end) you will realize that they are speaking of using Bluetooth in the Palm to connect to a Bluetooth-enabled cellphone, which is where the actual access will come from.
I thought this was kind of obvious though. The first time I heard of Bluetooth, the first thing I thought was a PDA/Phone combo.
--
As I understand it, Darwin is essentially OSX, sans Quartz and the MacOS compatability layer.
First of all, I think we should give credit to Apple for doing this. Yes, I know it's not GPL. I am not sure but I would hazard a guess that the Apple Public License is NOT a certified (by OSI) Open Source (TM) licence. However, this is a great start. We should not flame Apple for not using the GPL but instead encourage them and other companies to do the same. As an aside, anyone know why the didn't just use a BSD license?
Finally, could anyone tell me if they know whether or not OSX is OpenStep compliant? ie, when Quicktime for OSX is released, would it be possible to run it under GNUstep? And further, what are people's opinions on OpenStep/GNUstep? I have been interested lately, and I think that given all the discussion going on lately about cross platform compatability, we should just go ahead and have all the distros be OpenStep compliant. If you would like more information, check out the GNUstep website.
--
Where did the DMCA story go????
I just refreshed my page, and then POOF! the story was gone. Anyone care to explain where/why it went?
[sarcasm]It must be VA/Andover exercising their "editorial control". I'm discouraged to see that the governed has the Linux companies firmly in its grasp as well...[/sarcasm]
But seriously though. What happened? I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation...
--
When I first started using Linux (about a year ago), what impressed me the most was that you weren't locked into a single, all-encompassing solution. Everything was (and is) so modular. Tools like grep, ls, cat, head, etc. and the use of pipes just seemed so refreshing to me, someone who had been using MS-DOS (including Win95) for as long as I can remember. Even in the GUI, there was the display server, the font server, the window manager...
I see desktop environments as being very contradictory to the traditional UNIX philosophy of "do one thing, but do it very well". We have the two leading desktop environments, Gnome and KDE, which are rapidly expanding to include everything under the sun. Is an office suite really part of a desktop environment? Is an email client? Terminal emulator? Web browser?
Personally, I think the answer is no. I want the freedom to choose my desktop shell, my email client, my web browser, and my office suite.
To get to the point, my question is this: do you believe that the notion of a "Complete Desktop Environment" contradicts the traditional UNIX philosophy? If so, why do you feel the need to change something that has obviously worked so well for so long?
If you would like to know, I would personally prefer that Gnome consist of the panel and shell ONLY, and then we could have something like Helix which could package the panel and shell with a nice browser (branded mozilla maybe), window manager (sawmill or e), etc. I definitely believe there is a need for an open-source office suite, but I think the development should go on outside of Gnome or KDE core.
I am curious about other people's opinions on this as well, email me with any thoughts...
--
I'm not Miguel, but I think I can answer this one. In the previous Eazel threads, many people have pointed out the fact that the Eazel product is destined to become the Gnome 2.0 desktop shell.
So the answer to your question would be a resounding YES, mozilla technology will be integrated into Gnome. As an aside, I agree with you completely and would find it ridiculous that the Open Source Community would put so much work into a project (Mozilla) and then let other projects duplicate effort (Gnome and KDE).
Perhaps this could be a question to KDE developers: Are there any plans to integrate Gecko into Konqueror?
--
Well, I must say that at first glance I thought this post was a troll. But apparently someone had moderated it _up_, so I thought I'd take a look.
It took you ten paragraphs to say what you summarized in the final one:
Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but if your theory were true, PCs, and the internet for that matter, would not exist as they do today. Yes, some people are resistant to change. Yet for every person who was content, for example, with MS-DOS, there was another person who couldn't get over how gee-whiz cool Windows 3.1 was. Many of those people were IT managers, and people began to learn Windows because that's what they used at work. And as most of us know, Windows _is_ DOS. If people were as resistant to change as you say, everyone would have stayed with the CLI.
My point is similar to one Jakob has made before. There is very little left to squeeze out of the WIMP UI paradigm. Yes, if KDE, Gnome, and others continue to try and make everything act like Windows (or, as Jakob puts it, like Lisa), non-techie users will be reluctant to change. However, give them a new, gee-whiz technology, or something that looks like one, and IT managers will come in droves. And the home users will follow.
--
I believe it is important to make the distinction between quantitiy of communication and quality of communication. The issue is not whether or not we communicate more on the net, but whether we communicate better. Let me explain what I mean.
I believe that without question, the rise of the internet has given people an ability to communicate more often, and with less work. Compare letter writing of decades ago with the email that most of us exchange with friends. A letter would take weeks to turn around, while an email can take minutes.
But is more communication desirable? I'm not sure it is. I believe that the more we substitute things like ICQ and email for face-to-face contact, the more we dilute the message. To give an example, I have a couple of friends who are in Europe, while I am in Canada. I think it is much more meaningful and fulfilling to send them a long and well thought out letter once a year than it is to exchange typical and mundane pleasantries on ICQ every night. In fact, I would rather not talk to the person than have a typical ICQ exchange.
"Hey, what's up?"
"Not much, you?"
"Not much. Got an essay due tomorrow."
"That sucks."
"Yeah."
"So what's up?"
ETC.
So I believe that the net is making us more isolated. We are communicating more than ever before, but never has the message been more insignificant. IRC and ICQ promote sound-bite communication. Email has in many cases become a crutch, or more accurately a shield, for docile and cowardly people. It is not hard to see why there are so many flames. Yet I defy you to find a handful of people who would actually defend their opinions in person.
And an on-topic question, does anybody know what McLuhan thinks of the new media? I would be very interested to know.
--
Although the author has some very valid points, it seems to me that these points are somewhat misdirected. Most of the issues he raises should be aimed at the Linux industry, not the Linux community. Although the former has a direct reliance on, or more specifically a symbiotic relationship with, the latter.
Linux, as it stands, is without question a techie OS, and I would like to see it stay that way. I believe that it is companies like Caldera, and Red Hat I suppose, who need to "grok" the concepts the author is proposing, but only if they wish to make as much money as possible. There may be a need for a Microsoft Word look-and-feel-alike, however it is NOT the duty of the Linux community to create one. It may be a good idea for Red Hat to do so.
What I particularily dislike is the author's feeling that the Linux community should answer to the customers and the businesses. To me it seems patently obvious that this will never be the case. The Linux community will go on doing what is does best, which is serve itself, and encourage others to adopt Linux and open standards. If anyone needs to dumb down Linux, it is companies like Red Hat and Corel.
--