I'm not saying that I especially like Ubuntu, but overall I like what they are doing. It has clearly been more successful than most others in getting Linux to people's desktop.
It's been very nice to follow Ubuntu. Few other distributions have been better at making Linux available for so many. Congratulation Ubuntu. Well done!
It's been a while since I actually tried, but I'm under the impression that it should work as long as you install it under a different prefix, such as/opt.
Some of us manages hundred or thousands of Linux desktops and workstations. One of the reasons why we were able to deploy Linux at all and throw out Windows XP was in large parts thanks to GNOME and all the great work that has been used to refine it.
GNOME 3 is at a stage where it might work on someones personal laptop, but it's not yet something which you want to deploy it in a large enterprise environment. There's a lot of good ideas in GNOME 3, but it's not yet ready. This would have been a non-issue if we had been able to have both GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 installed side by side in a setup supported by the distributions. I know that MATE exists, and that's good; but it's sad that we had to rename everything and break a lot of things that worked.
I just tried the DVD. Not great but felt slightly better than 18, until I had to set the root password and realized that it didn't detect the keyboard.
No one offers GNOME 2 because it's effectively dead.
At least Red Hat will support GNOME 2 on RHEL 6 until 2020.
MATE is the replacement.
It would have been so much better if things had just worked. We have a lot of multiuser machines and not everyone wants to switch to GNOME 2 yet. We would have been so much happier if we could have GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 available in the login window and let users choose which one they wanted. It's just ridiculous that we have to rename everything just to get things to work side by side.
Or grab the source and build a GNOME 2. It's not necessarily simple to do, but nothing stops you.
What's sad about the whole thing is that no distro seams to be able to offer BOTH 2 and 3 at least for now, so that users can use an environment that actually works instead of a slightly less working environment which may become better in a couple of years or so.
As far as I know they just stopped contributing to OpenSolaris. But they never attempted to stop anyone from picking it up and keep running with it, which led to Illumos and a few other projects taking its place. It's unfortuneate, but not evil.
I think that the GPL is a good document for describing how an optimal world would look like. A really nice one actually. But the problem is that it's going too far. A lot of businesses basically have a policy about not allowing any GPLv3 through the door. Which is very sad. And that's also why I generally recommend that you use a permissive license from the start and only move to something more restrictive if you find it necessary. It's possible to change from GPL at a later stage, but it's cumbersome if you have received any form of contribution because everyone have to agree on it. Going the other way is much easier, you basically just change it. A competitor might of course create a closed source fork based on your earlier work. Yes, absolutely. And it's usually less of a problem. Open is a feature. And if your project is so successful that someone does make a closed fork from it then you're already ahead of most others.
The internal version number for Visual Studio 2012 is 11, just as the version number for Visual Studio 2010 is 10. It has no connection with C++ version support.
I guess it's a matter of personal optinion. Persionally I don't mind that someone can use open source code that I wrote and use it in a proprietary version. I don't see that as a problem. If they would pay me I would much prefer that they pay me for writing the source code or modify it for their needs, rhather than maintaining some dual licensing thing.
My history is a bit vague here but quickly reading the Wikipedia page suggests that Clang did originate at Apple. The LLVM project as a whole did not however.
Slashdot Mirror
13.04 is not an LTS.
Software is engineering, so when will they solve the problem ? at what point do they say "finished" ?
It is finished once bug number one has been resolved.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
I'm not saying that I especially like Ubuntu, but overall I like what they are doing. It has clearly been more successful than most others in getting Linux to people's desktop.
It's been very nice to follow Ubuntu. Few other distributions have been better at making Linux available for so many. Congratulation Ubuntu. Well done!
That's the problem. We shouldn't have to rename something to MATE. It should have just worked.
Absolutely, that's the problem. If the distributions could offer both GNOME 2 and 3, hopefully even at the same time, then I would be very happy.
It's been a while since I actually tried, but I'm under the impression that it should work as long as you install it under a different prefix, such as /opt.
Interesting. Can you have both of them installed at the same time?
Some of us manages hundred or thousands of Linux desktops and workstations. One of the reasons why we were able to deploy Linux at all and throw out Windows XP was in large parts thanks to GNOME and all the great work that has been used to refine it.
GNOME 3 is at a stage where it might work on someones personal laptop, but it's not yet something which you want to deploy it in a large enterprise environment. There's a lot of good ideas in GNOME 3, but it's not yet ready. This would have been a non-issue if we had been able to have both GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 installed side by side in a setup supported by the distributions. I know that MATE exists, and that's good; but it's sad that we had to rename everything and break a lot of things that worked.
I just tried the DVD. Not great but felt slightly better than 18, until I had to set the root password and realized that it didn't detect the keyboard.
No one offers GNOME 2 because it's effectively dead.
At least Red Hat will support GNOME 2 on RHEL 6 until 2020.
MATE is the replacement.
It would have been so much better if things had just worked. We have a lot of multiuser machines and not everyone wants to switch to GNOME 2 yet. We would have been so much happier if we could have GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 available in the login window and let users choose which one they wanted. It's just ridiculous that we have to rename everything just to get things to work side by side.
Or grab the source and build a GNOME 2. It's not necessarily simple to do, but nothing stops you.
What's sad about the whole thing is that no distro seams to be able to offer BOTH 2 and 3 at least for now, so that users can use an environment that actually works instead of a slightly less working environment which may become better in a couple of years or so.
Let's just see how much breaks with that ASCII compliant name. :-)
Her name is just My.
Java was already open source when Oracle bought Sun. And since then, Oracle has been trying to close it back again with bullshit patent claims.
As far as I know they actively contribute to the open source implementation, which was what the question was all about.
As far as I know they just stopped contributing to OpenSolaris. But they never attempted to stop anyone from picking it up and keep running with it, which led to Illumos and a few other projects taking its place. It's unfortuneate, but not evil.
MySQL is a bit of a different story.
Btrfs, VirtualBox, Java. Just to mention a few.
What statement? It looks like an ordinary article to me.
I for one can see a utility box from my house. It could very well be a camera in there.
I think that the GPL is a good document for describing how an optimal world would look like. A really nice one actually. But the problem is that it's going too far. A lot of businesses basically have a policy about not allowing any GPLv3 through the door. Which is very sad. And that's also why I generally recommend that you use a permissive license from the start and only move to something more restrictive if you find it necessary. It's possible to change from GPL at a later stage, but it's cumbersome if you have received any form of contribution because everyone have to agree on it. Going the other way is much easier, you basically just change it. A competitor might of course create a closed source fork based on your earlier work. Yes, absolutely. And it's usually less of a problem. Open is a feature. And if your project is so successful that someone does make a closed fork from it then you're already ahead of most others.
Looks like it's down to $ 30.
http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=INCITS/ISO/IEC%2014882-2012
The internal version number for Visual Studio 2012 is 11, just as the version number for Visual Studio 2010 is 10. It has no connection with C++ version support.
I guess it's a matter of personal optinion. Persionally I don't mind that someone can use open source code that I wrote and use it in a proprietary version. I don't see that as a problem. If they would pay me I would much prefer that they pay me for writing the source code or modify it for their needs, rhather than maintaining some dual licensing thing.
My history is a bit vague here but quickly reading the Wikipedia page suggests that Clang did originate at Apple. The LLVM project as a whole did not however.
True as well, and important too that we don't forget. When we put aside our differences we find that we're all really into it for the same thing.